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. Martin 16:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation

• Rename. I didn't nominate this, the nominator didn't sign. Rhollenton 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Speedy. Honbicot 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename not quite a speedy. Carina22 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Sumahoy 15:04, 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.

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 16:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me think of garden water features. I don't think it is likely that many people will seek this out in the main Cities but they might look for its subcategories like category:Coastal cities. I think it will be better to promote the subcategories. Merge Rhollenton 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Not useful. Honbicot 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. — Instantnood 06:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are the two different options. Which one do you support?
    • Delete is a third option (isn't it?), that I don't support. — Instantnood 17:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Well meant but unhelpful. Carina22 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Confusing. Sumahoy 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Not good. Golfcam 17:44, 8 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 16:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles after over 7 months and they are in other categories as well. Better to classify by location and to use the much better filled Category:destroyed cities where appropriate. Also causes needless confusion with category:History by city. Rhollenton 20:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All cities have history. Too vague and hardly used. Carina22 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An idea that hasn't been taken up, which is no bad thing in this case. Bhoeble 15:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carina22. --Vizcarra 01:12, 7 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 16:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia naming conventions. Most aircraft carrier categories already correct. Joshbaumgartner 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nominator. Honbicot 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and standardize, as above. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to standardize. Sumahoy 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename because it's the rules. Golfcam 17:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (and lol @ Golfcam). - N (talk) 23:13, 11 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 15:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the battles previously listed are now merged into the main Final Fantasy XI article. The category is now blank and useless. ~ Hibana 19:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as empty. Carina22 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sumahoy 15:04, 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.

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 16:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have created some culture categories for European cities lately and I have just noticed that apart from London the British ones use the unnecessarily lengthy style "Arts and entertainment in..." It would be good to cancel this out. Some of the places are counties rather than cities, but I don't think this makes any difference:

• category:Arts and entertainment in Berkshire change to category:Culture in Berkshire
• category:Arts and entertainment in Birmingham, England change to category:Culture in Birmingham, England
• category:Arts and entertainment in Bristol change to category:Culture in Bristol
• category:Arts and entertainment in Edinburgh change to category:Culture in Edinburgh
• category:Arts and entertainment in Glasgow change to category:Culture in Glasgow
• category:Arts and entertainment in Greater Manchester change to category:Culture in Greater Manchester
• category:Arts and entertainment in Liverpool change to category:Culture in Liverpool
• Category:London culture change to Category:Culture in London (to match the others)
• category:Arts and entertainment on Merseyside change to category:Culture in Mereyside
• category:Arts and entertainment in Sheffield change to category:Culture in Sheffield
• category:Arts and entertainment in Tyne and Wear change to category:Culture in Tyne and Wear
• category:Arts and entertainment in West Yorkshire change to category:Culture in West Yorkshire

It follows that if these are named the top category should also be renamed:

• category:Arts and entertainment in the United Kingdom by locality change to category:Culture in the United Kingdom by locality
• Rename Rhollenton 18:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Culture is a much wider subject.--TrackInspector 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but why is that relevant? It is better to be broader and more consistent. Rhollenton 00:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would overlap with History, Education and Buildings Categories at least.--TrackInspector 02:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is no different from the present situation. A demolished theatre belongs in these categories and in history and buildings, a defunct music school belongs in these categories and in history and education, and a demolished art school in a notable building would belong in all four! But there is no rule against putting articles in several categories. Rhollenton 15:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and add anything that is missing. Local categories shouldn't be too narrow or they will be very small. Honbicot 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Culture is far too vague a term. As numerous counties and cities already have the form "Arts and entertainment..." and only one has the form "Culture...", this suggests to me that "Arts and entertainment..." is more useful. Category:London culture is not an equivalent cat to the "Arts and entertainment..." cats as it also includes Category:Religion in London, Category:Sport in London etc. - thus demonstrating the wider meaning of the word "culture" . Valiantis 13:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Look at the global perspective. The one exception is London which has more articles than all the others put together and it is consistent with New York and Paris. Consistency matters. Carina22 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you're making a case on the basis of consistency, then surely the consistency of the UK cats is also of significance. In these, London is the inconsistent entry -the others all follow the same pattern. The consistency you refer to mainly exists as Rhollenton has recently created a number of cats for European cities in the form "Culture in Fooville". This is obviously a useful piece of work, but the naming policy is effectively a unilateral decision; prior to his actions there weren't enough cats of this type outside the UK to determine what was and was not consistent. BTW, Category:New York City culture (not one of Rholleton's creations) includes subcats on religion, cemeteries and hotels! If this doesn't demonstrate the near-meaningless vagueness of the term "Culture" as opposed to the relative precision of the term "Arts and entertainment" I'm not sure what does. Valiantis 14:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't meaningless. It is one of the eight fundamental categories listed on the main page and there are culture categories for every country in the world except the very smallest. There are categories for Toronto, Berlin, Paris, Chicago, Hong Kong and Singapore all of which were created by different people, and probably others I haven't come across yet. And in the last day or two someone else has even created one for Turku. With London, New York and my efforts that means at least ten different users have started a culture category for a city. Where's the unilateralism in that? Rhollenton 14:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The culture categories for countries are in the form "Fooish culture" - i.e. the nature of people and society in those countries - and include subcats on such topics as religion, cuisine, sport, language etc. which are not generally perceived as part of the arts. You are using the word culture as though it is synonymous with "the arts" and it isn't - and it also isn't used as such in those Culture by city categories such as New York and London that you didn't create (as I think I've demonstrated). By all means, create Category:Culture in Manchester etc. if you think this is useful. That is not, however, a justification for renaming more specific categories about "Arts and entertainment" which might reasonably be subcats of a "Culture" category (just as currently Category:Entertainment in London is a subcat of Category:London culture).Valiantis 21:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So add more articles if you want. You seem to have given up on your earlier contentions. Arts and entertainment is a clumsy portmanteau term that doesn't seem to be used anywhere else and therefore such-named categories don't fit anywhere else. Separate categories for theatre, music etc make much more sense. They can be created for cities if required and will fit into the overall structure of wikipedia. Category:Arts and entertainment doesn't exist and shouldn't exist so local arts and entertainment categories shouldn't exist either. Every other category that is used at city level also exists at a global level. Wikipedia should have a clear structure and these categories are just a mess.Rhollenton 03:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Long portmanteau names need a good justification and I can see none for these. Sumahoy 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Smaller places should have broader categories rather than narrower ones or the number of tiny categories will grow out of control. Bhoeble 15:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the places named above (e.g. Birmingham, Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, Merseyside) are large urban areas with populations in the millions - larger in population than a fair few countries. Category:Arts and entertainment in Birmingham, England has 33 articles currently - that seems a reasonable amount to justify a separate category. Valiantis 21:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only two of those have a population over two million and none above three. But if culture is appropriate for New York and Turku, and for China and Malta, it hardly matters. Rhollenton 03:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. "Culture" is very clearly established as a standard category. "Arts and entertainment" never will be. CalJW 04:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've found culture categories for Melbourne and Sydney, which have been around since April. The number of different users who are known to have created culture by city categories is now eleven. Rhollenton 04:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all because it's shorter. Golfcam 17:44, 8 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 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• dml 03:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Busses" is an acceptable plural. --Kbdank71 15:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Busses" is an acceptable plural in the United States. It looks horrid to us Commonwegians. —Blotwell 10:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Busses" is a plural that could mean something else (kisses), whereas "Buses" cannot. So it should be changed.--Mike Selinker 17:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support renaming. CalJW 22:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note:Moved to Cfd from speedy. --Kbdank71 18:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed to the form that is acceptable everywhere. Rhollenton 18:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Rhollenton. Hiding talk 22:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Buses. Honbicot 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I had no idea that busses is acceptable in the U.S. Carina22 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Busses: [1] Buses: [2] As for whether or not it can mean something else, a brief glance at the category will tell you what it is for. And if you're still confused, we can always add a short intro. -- Kbdank71 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the wikidictionary entries are poor because they say nothing about usage. So what? Rhollenton 20:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename It's about mutual respect rather than confusion Kbdank71. Sumahoy 20:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Sumahoy --Vizcarra 01:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename CalJW 21:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename... I'm in the US, and I usually see it written as "buses". Also, Google hits heavily favor "buses". buses busses --Idont Havaname 03:09, 9 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 16:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category is Category:World War II military equipment. Joshbaumgartner 21:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. Carina22 23:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: cat was not tagged for deletion, relisting for 7 days. --Kbdank71 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Honbicot 01:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Sumahoy 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - N (talk) 23:05, 11 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 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More suitable as existing List of lost United States submarines, unless we want to start categorizing all ships by fate in addition to existing categories. Joshbaumgartner 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: cat was not tagged for deletion, relisting for 7 days. --Kbdank71 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lost is a bit vague for a non-War period. Sumahoy 20:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Imprecise and open ended. CalJW 04:13, 8 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 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More suitable as existing List of lost United States submarines, unless we want to start categorizing all ships by fate in addition to existing categories. Joshbaumgartner 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: cat was not tagged for deletion, relisting for 7 days. --Kbdank71 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Sumahoy 20:49, 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 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More suitable as existing List of lost United States submarines, unless we want to start categorizing all ships by fate in addition to existing categories. Joshbaumgartner 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: cat was not tagged for deletion, relisting for 7 days. --Kbdank71 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Sumahoy 20:50, 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. Martin 20:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replace U.S. with United States. Official name for naval aviation command is Naval Air Force (COMNAVAIRFOR) (See org chart), so Category:United States Naval Air Force may be more appropriate if folks agree. Joshbaumgartner 21:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. Carina22 23:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: cat was not tagged for deletion, relisting for 7 days. --Kbdank71 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename no opinion on which form to use. Sumahoy 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:United States naval aviation

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 University of Ireland, Galway people --Kbdank71 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The exisitant category uses a defunct name of the National University of Ireland, Galway (NUI, Galway) viz University College Galway which has not been used officially since 1997. Use of a variation of the current name will improve the category and also give it a better place in Category:National University of Ireland, Galway. Djegan 15:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename without the abbreviation, ie. Category:Auditors of the Literary and Debating Society of National University of Ireland, Galway
  • Comment Please identify by signature yourself if you wish the vote to be coubted. Djegan 18:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The title 'University College Galway' is still formally used by the society, in a manner consistent with section 7(3) of the Universities Act, 1997 [3]. All persons referred to in the category held the office prior to the changeover to NUI, Galway. Perhaps a redirect from the proposed new name to the original would be the most appropriate step? Gustavus 13:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i was rethinking this one and assume that all these people are alumni of the university or college - maybe just rename the category to Category: National University of Ireland, Galway people a category for all associated? Djegan 18:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but keep it as short as possible. Sumahoy 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Category: National University of Ireland, Galway people since there is no alumni category. I have no idea if this office is important, but it's more important to have an alumni category. Sumahoy 20:52, 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 15:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't have a category. It is accusation of players that were involved with hookers. There is an article already devoted to this that listed the accused American football players. No need to categorized and it is sort of wrong... --J. Nguyen 05:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnecessary. android79 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 05:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From WP:CG: Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article. Labeling these specific players with this category, although not libel, is at least of very bad taste. If they're ultimately banned from playing, I could see a category for "players banned from the NFL" (or some such). A category based on a current, unfolding, news story seems completely inappropriate. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A slur where no guilt was proven. Not a good idea. Carina22 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor news events don't need a category. We have to keep the usage of categories in check or after a number of years there will be too many for it to be easy to find the key ones. Bhoeble 15:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary, all information should be in the article proper, being a specific, "small" event. -- Taiichi «talk» 08:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur with everything that has been mentioned. BMetts 17:10, 8 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 reverse merge --Kbdank71 15:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ...accident upwards into it's parent cat. SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• REVERSE MERGE The accident category is more inclusive, as all articles in Kursk, also belong to the accident, whereas the AS-34 article definitely does not belong in a "Kursk" category, only the "Kursk accident" category 132.205.45.148 18:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: We have more submarine accident categories than categories for individual subs. 132.205.45.148
• REVERSE MERGE This sub is really only known because of the accident. - TexasAndroid 20:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge as per the others. Bhoeble 15:44, 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 upmerge --Kbdank71 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems redundant - it contains no articles, just the two subcats Category:Russian submarine accidents and Category:Soviet submarine accidents, which can be moved into the parent Category:Submarine accidents. SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Up as per nom. - TexasAndroid 20:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as per nom. Carina22 14:45, 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. Martin 20:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need for "The", as per WP:NC. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename Bhoeble 12:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Very few categories start with "The" so it is perhaps against policy. Sumahoy 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - N (talk) 23:03, 11 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 15:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real catergory. Redundant with Chu-young Park Nv8200p talk 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just a category page being used as an article. Rhollenton 00:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Carina22 14:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only very important people should have a category. Sumahoy 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete well, rather for lack of articles, rather than (subjective) importance. --Vizcarra 01:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He isn't very important and that is a legitimate argument. CalJW 21:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Looks like a mistake - N (talk) 23:02, 11 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.