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 20:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Category only has one item, parent category Category:Cornish music also has one article. Parent category has a descriptive enough name. -- Pfafrich 23:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge. R adiant _>|< 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge. No argument. siafu 13:34, 19 January 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 -- Kbdank71 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This should belong to the wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Articles on various topics are put in that page. Malayalam, a language, Anina, a town, Hannah, a disambig, etc. bogdan 23:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Conceivably a Category:Palindromes could exist for articles about palindromes. Except for Palindrome itself, however, that category would be unlikely to have any inhabitants. JRM · Talk 23:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Wiktionary is not the place to list palindromes. Dictionary definitions of words do not typically list whether a word is a palindrom or not see [1]. Hence a words palindromness is more encyclopedic. -- Pfafrich 00:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  No, it is not. If Wiktionary (or indeed any other dictionary) chooses not to indicate palindromes, that's their business. That it doesn't do this does not make it Wikipedia's business. If it were anybody's business, it would be the business of some (possibly specialized) dictionary, but it's not an encyclopedia's business.

  The Wikipedia articles in this category are without exception not on words. Anina is not a word but a town; "Anina" is a palindrome but we don't have an article on the word—nor should we. Compare fuck, which is about the word. Whether the title of an article is a palindrome is not encyclopedic, whether it is also part of a dictionary or not.

  We have palindromic words to list palindromes, and a list is indeed the appropriate tool for the job. A category is not. JRM · Talk 04:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per JRM. -- SCZenz 07:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify and delete. To the articles, adding this category is irrelevant trivia. R adiant _>|< 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep original thinking, Wiki should be more than an ordinary encyclopedia V8rik 17:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This category brings together totally unrelated topics on a trivial factoid. This is utterly unencyclopedic. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per JRM - All these Wikipedia articles are not about words, but about the things those words represent. Categories should also be about the things and not the words. If we had articles for Madam, I'm Adam or Able was I, ere I saw Elba, then this category would have some point. — sjorford (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and list. Trivial. siafu 13:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep A useful part of wikipedia's coverage of language. CalJW 23:17, 22 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Category has been split up by year; see Category:2005 North Indian cyclone season. Could also qualify as a rename, but it doesn't really matter. Jdorje 23:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No argument. siafu 13:36, 19 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Category that contained only redirects and the real people that characters in Pocahontas were based on. I've cleaned it out, creating a empty and useless category. ' ^{( Feeling chatty? ) ( Edits!)} 22:22, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Underutilized, very difficult to maintain, not particularly encyclopedaic. I don't feel strongly about this, but I do think there should be a coherent decision on whether this is worth putting on all films that might fit, or not. SCZenz 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Looks like it was created because List of films and television shows not available on DVD was deleted. Delete this bastard offspring as well. ' ^{( Feeling chatty? ) ( Edits!)} 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete if not worth a list, certainly not worth a category. Joshbaumgartner 23:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unlikely to stay accurate and not worth the effort of trying to maintain it. Calsicol 06:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I was interested in looking at it and I don't mind the idea of one, but then I realized it would be insanely hard to complete. 70.224.65.251 22:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Impossible to maintain accurately. Plus, it would have to be region specific. -- Dogbreathcanada 00:07, 22 January 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 all but Chaplin, Powell and Pressburger as nominated -- Kbdank71 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The naming convention for categories in Category:Films by director is Category:Films directed by X. The following categories should therefore be renamed:

• Category:Charlie Chaplin films -> Category:Films directed by Charlie Chaplin
• Category:Frank Zappa films -> Category:Films directed by Frank Zappa
• Category:Films by Powell and Pressburger -> Category:Films directed by Powell and Pressburger
• Category:Films by Alejandro Jodorowsky -> Category:Films directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky
• Category:Films by Jorge Fons -> Category:Films directed by Jorge Fons

Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Concur. R adiant _>|< 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Charlie Chaplin didn't direct all the films in his category and nor did Powell and Pressburger. I don't know about the others, but these need to be considered one at a time. Calsicol 19:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Then those articles shouldn't be in those categories, but in the categories of the directors. We don't (yet?) categorize articles by lead actors (although it might sometimes be a good thing to do so). If we would do so, those categories shouldn't be subcategories of Category:Films by director. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • See comments below. Bhoeble 23:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose the blanket rename. Category:Films by Powell and Pressburger is a special case and was already discussed here several months ago when it was renamed to the current form from the now-proposed form! They were a writing-directing-producing team ( Michael Powell was the director, Emeric Pressburger the writer, both credited as producers) whose joint works should be grouped together as that is how they are normally discussed in film criticism circles - see the article Powell and Pressburger. On a more general point, although Chaplin did not direct every film in which he appeared, he was clearly the auteur of all his significant works. The automatic privilegisation of the director as the primary creator of a film is a POV view (see auteur theory) and all cats could reasonably be named "Films by XY" (after all, this is what it generally says at the start of the credits - "AB presents... A film by XY"). However, where the auteur is the director, there is no harm in the form "Films directed by XY", but this should not be a cast-iron form where the primary creator is a team. Valiantis 03:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, with the cited exception of Category:Films by Powell and Pressburger. Whether or not someone is the director of a film is hardly POV, and does not indicate that the director is the "primary creator" -- it's just the most sensible categorization in comparison to categorizing by starring actors or actresses. Calling this a matter of NPOV is just a red herring. siafu 01:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename except Category:Films by Powell and Pressburger and Category:Charlie Chaplin films. Chaplin started out as an actor but evolved into a writer, director, producer and even composer, but it is his presence in the films which is notable. The directors of his early shorts are of no importance. As he was the most important entertainer of the first half of the 20th century it is in order to make an exception for him. Bhoeble 23:27, 22 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

These two categories exist only to hold the article Benga, which already also exists in the key parent of the two categories: Category:Kenyan music. IMHO, leaving the article in Category:Kenyan music and removing these two categories should be sufficient. - TexasAndroid 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete both. Overcategorization. siafu 01:33, 20 January 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 19:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The abbreviation should go. "American" is preferable because when thinking about politics many people associate "United States" specifically with the national government, but this category covers all political scandals in the country. Sumahoy 18:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Oppose The name of the country is the United States, not America. ¨ Egil 08:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I believe that the name is United States of America. Vegaswikian 20:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Note that the above is a redirect to United States. This is per the usage of common names. siafu 01:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Get rid of this primitive named categories already. - Darwinek 11:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename (but as yet another alternative, wouldn't "political scandals in the united states" fit the bill and the standard better?) R adiant _>|< 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American. As for the "X in country" alternative, it doesn't fit the few similar categories - but feel free to nominate them all at once if you don't find a standard that says otherwise. — Wknight94 ( talk) 18:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Radiant to Category:Political scandals in the United States.

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 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete as G2: test page. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 21:44, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Arguable misnamed in any case. Bhoeble 23:24, 22 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not a good name. Bhoeble 23:24, 22 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:13, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:13, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:20, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Wasn't there a mass deletion of professor categories a while back? Bhoeble 19:19, 13 January 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 redirect -- Kbdank71 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• REDIRECT. Redirect to Category: Canadian Whisky. Both whiskey and whisky are legal spellings for the liquor, so best to redirect to the category being used, rather than simply delete. Otherwise someone will simply recreate in the future, not knowing a category using the other spelling already exists. -- Dogbreathcanada 00:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Category:Canadian whisky per User:Dogbreathcanada. -- maclean25 04:42, 22 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:20, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:20, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:20, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:20, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:24, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I've now added a few subcategories to it, there may be more that I can't find right now. Vclaw 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, useful now. NoSeptember ^talk 00:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but perhaps rename to Category:Defunct political parties by country. siafu 01:36, 20 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as empty, but it may be useful to create a Category:Deified Roman Emperors, as some were and some weren't. I'm thinking, though, that I could make a list (if I ever get the time). siafu 01:43, 20 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:24, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:24, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:24, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:24, 13 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, tagged for deletion but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 18:24, 13 January 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 19:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to adjective to match other articles under Category:Society by nationality. - Darwinek 17:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. CalJW 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The name of the country is the United States, not America. ¨ Egil 08:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Actually the name of the country is the United States of America. Vegaswikian 00:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, this has been widely discussed. Also, if you want to be pedantic about it, Egil's assertion is still incorrect as the country's name is longer than that. R adiant _>|< 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename: As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American. — Wknight94 ( talk) 22:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 01:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- Dogbreathcanada 00:05, 22 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Silly categorization, overcat, and empty Ze miguel 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Isn't this a candidate for Speedy Delete? Empty, no history. Deborah-jl _Talk 17:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 21:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Bhoeble 23:29, 22 January 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 as per alternative proposal -- Kbdank71 19:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

No entries here, only subcategories by country. GCarty 15:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC) *Oppose "Auto racing" is American English while "racecar" seems to be acceptable, at least as a second choice, everywhere. The name is inconsistent with the names of the subcategories. CalJW 17:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• • OK, alternative suggestion to rename to Category:Racecar drivers by nationality, while also renaming Category:Auto racing drivers to Category:Racecar drivers. GCarty 18:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support alternative proposal:
  • Rename Category:Racecar drivers to Category:Racecar drivers by nationality
    • then
  • Rename Category:Auto racing drivers to Category:Racecar drivers. CalJW 18:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support amended proposal. Racecar drivers is a good term. I think motor racing drivers is more common in the UK, but I'm unsure whether that covers motorcycle racers or not. Racecar drivers is clearcut. Bhoeble 19:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong support of the amended recommendation. When I was categorizing racers by country, this seemed a terrible place for the subcategories. The new title is much better.--- Mike Selinker 21:46, 18 January 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 19:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

capitalization. Christopherlin 07:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• sorry to be a pedant, but you can't bury people in space (unless you bury them on a moon or somewhere like that. Mind you, I can't think of a viable alternative name... Grutness... wha? 09:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Support speedy and oppose the objection. The meaning is perfectly clear. Choalbaton 15:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • i suppose it depends whether you want a category thats understandable or one thats named right. Category:People whose ashes were sent into space is right. BL kiss the lizard 23:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If you try to bury someone in the sea the hole tends to instantly fill with water, but that hasn't stopped "burial at sea" from being a standard term for centuries! -- Arwel ( talk) 11:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • well that makes sense. you bury someone by putting them under something. earth or water makes no difference. what are you putting them under in space? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note:Moved from speedy because of objections. -- Kbdank71 15:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Editors of the article Space burial do not seem to see a problem with the term burial, although they use it in quotes. -- Ze miguel 17:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as proposed. This reflects normal usage I believe. There's no need for wikipedia to be literal minded. CalJW 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as proposed. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete: problem with name, not primary, secondary or even tertiary characteristics of a person. Useless category clutter. Pavel Vozenilek 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Pavel has a good point Listify and delete. R adiant _>|< 21:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and list per Pavel and Radiant. It's a weird thing, but so too would be Category:People who can touch their tongues to their noses. siafu 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify/Delete per Radiant. BD2412 T 21:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Christopherlin. Philip Stevens 16:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as proposed. Bhoeble 23:30, 22 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Redirected to Category:Bemani games and empty. Kcordina 15:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nomination -- TimPope 18:28, 16 January 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:Seminaries and theological colleges -- Kbdank71 19:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a subcat of Category:Seminaries, and there seems to be no reason why it was subdivided. From the category header: the term seminary is also used. . Ze miguel 13:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment. According to Seminary, "theological college" is the more common term in the UK. I am also under the impression - though the article doesn't comment on this either way - that in British English, "seminary" suggests a Catholic institution and "theological college" an Anglican (or other Protestant) institution. As this appears to be an issue re: differences in dialect, how about deleting Category:Theological colleges and renaming Category:Seminaries to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges to encompass both. Valiantis 14:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I see your point. In that case, it could be renamed to Category:Anglican theological colleges. Ze miguel 15:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge this and Category:Seminaries into Category:Seminaries and theological colleges. "Seminary" certainly makes me think of Roman Catholicism. CalJW 18:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I've nominated Category:Seminaries for renaming to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges. CalJW 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge as defined by CalJW (reasons as per my previous comment). Valiantis 03:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Here in the US, "theological college" is a completely foreign term. However, in addition to "seminary" (which is for both Protestants and Catholics), we also use the term "divinity school" (particularly, although not always, for theological schools that are part of a larger general university) as well as "theological school" or "school of theology" (both of which could be either a 'stand-alone' or a university-related institution). It would seem to me that a category named "Seminaries and theological schools" might be more fitting, since--speaking in terms of linguistic logic--a college is a type of school but a school is not a type of college. This, to my American ears, would encompass the idea of "theological college" without adopting that specifically-British usage. Emerymat 01:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • A college would not generally be considered a type of school in British usage (though there are certain individual schools called "Something-or-other College"!), as Brits don't refer to higher educational institutions as "school". I'm afraid your linguistic logic is only logical in American English. I have no strong feelings on this one, but it's worth pointing out that "theological college" appears to be a widely-used name for mainly Protestant institutions in Australia and South Africa (listed on WP) and Kenya, India, Uganda and indeed Canada ( via Google) too, so it seems to be standard Commonwealth English rather than peculiarly British. As such it is probably reasonable to include the term in the cat name. Valiantis 03:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge both to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges per CalJW. siafu 01:51, 20 January 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 -- Kbdank71 19:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Overbroad category - contents should be moved to activism-related subcategories Ze miguel 13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, overly broad. R adiant _>|< 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Ambiguous; other categories already cover the different possible meanings (e.g. Category:Activists, Category:Soldiers). siafu 01:54, 20 January 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Old name ambiguous, new name clear. SCZenz 04:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support, new name is less ambiguous. Shawnc 11:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Overcategorization (2 members). siafu 01:54, 20 January 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:National Hockey League first round draft picks -- Kbdank71 19:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It needs to be specified as to what the draft picks relate to. First round draft picks of what, exactly? Many different sports codes hold player drafts with first rounds, i.e NBA, AFL.

• Is now the time, and is there a need, to convert all of the associated cats to National Hockey League rather then NHL? Vegaswikian 22:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:National Hockey League first round draft picks. CalJW 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested by CalJW. Vegaswikian 23:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Vegaswikian/CalJW. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per CalJW; avoid abbreviations. siafu 01:56, 20 January 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 -- Kbdank71 18:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Only one subcat - Category:Eurasian-American singers already listed for possible deletion. No articles in this cat and only two in the subcat. No corresponding article Eurasian-American and no definition within the cat as to what a Eurasian-American might be. Valiantis 02:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. -- Darwinek 17:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nonsense. siafu 01:57, 20 January 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I've made a series out of Internet hosting service-related articles and created the Blog hosting service article. I propose to rename this category to 'Blog hosting services' for consistency. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-13 02:07 Z.

• Support Bhoeble 19:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Shouldn't we use the proper term "weblog" over the colloquialism "blog"? R adiant _>|< 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Not a strong opinion, but "blog" seems to much more commonly used (500,000,000 Google hits); and Blog article is titled "blog" and uses "blog" throughout. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-16 07:14 Z
• Rename. "Blog" seems to be the more appropriate term here. siafu 01:58, 20 January 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This is the only national associations category, but their are 35 organisations categories. It should be noted that some of these are all-Ireland organisations. Separate Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland subcategories will be appropriate in the long term, but this remains appropriate as a parent and it is hardly populated yet. Rename CalJW 00:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC). reply

After typing that I find that the other one already exists so merge. I will sort out the subcategories some time. CalJW 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge as proposed. Bhoeble 23:31, 22 January 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 -- Kbdank71 18:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

"Events" categories are deprecated for vagueness. This one has been abandoned for six months and all the articles are already in their proper category of Category:2005 in India. Delete CalJW 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:39, 17 January 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.