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. Martin 09:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and irrelevant. Joan sense nick 23:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No article, and since I can't understand Catalan the external link in the cat description doesn't help me understand what this even is. Clearly the category is premature. siafu 18:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Empty, unnecessary, overspecific. I think it meets CSD standards.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Martin 09:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a user whose only edits are a vanity page. Don't think we need a category for lobbyists but, if we do, this isn't it. Dlyons493 Talk 23:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per Dlyons493 and it is also in the singular rather than plural. Alan Liefting 08:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a category being used as an article, and a vanity page no less. Somebody's trying to find a clever way to get by the speedy AfD for vanity by taking advantage of the fact that there isn't one for categories. siafu 18:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 09:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This includes not only varieties spoken in Germany, but also Dutch and Afrikaans. A move facilitates the distinction between this group of languages and Plattdüütsch, often called Low German as well, which refers to a specific group of Low Germanic varieties primarily spoken in Germany (note the requested move for the corresponding article at Talk:Low German languages!). -- j. 'mach' wust | ✍ 23:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The terminology for this group of languages and dialects is thoroughly confused in English, both in spoken English and in academic circles. Good luck getting this straightened out! -- EncycloPetey 15:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--Dpr 11:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, though I've heard "Teutonic" used as a replacement name for the language family to avoid confusion with Plattdüüsch, Hoch Deutsch, etc. Of course, that's a different can of worms. siafu 18:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 20:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the tasks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling is to change all references of "Total Nonstop Action" to "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling" and so I'm nominating these categories to be renamed as part of this task:

• Category:Total Nonstop Action championships → Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling championships
• Category:Total Nonstop Action shows → Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling shows
• Category:Total Nonstop Action teams and stables → Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling teams and stables

--Oakster 23:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. McPhail 18:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 09:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Provides greater clarity vis a vis Category:Ships of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, whose vessels, while "naval," are not included in this category. The Tom 22:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest instead of Ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy it be Imperial Japanese Navy ships? Just a thought. — Moe ε 23:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that Ships/Shiptypes of Navyname was emerging as a de facto standard, but I'm not adverse to the above, either, provided there's wikipediawide consistency. The Tom 01:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom ("Ships of..."). siafu 18:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename consistant with prior cfd. Joshbaumgartner 00:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would propose Category:Ships of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and Category:Ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy under Category:Naval ships of Japan if we feel the need to have a seperate category for JMSDF and IJN vessels. However, I do note that this classification is already delineated by the use of era in categorization, which we use with ships. All World War II and prior vessels are going to be IJN and all Cold War and later vessels are going to be JMSDF. For ship type categories which span Japan's entire history, simply ship types of Japan will do fine, ex. Category:Cruisers of Japan. Thus I don't know that we need to isolate the JMSDF and IJN. Joshbaumgartner 09:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively a duplicate of Category:Gardening and somewhat awkwardly named in any case. I have moved the small number of articles it contained to Gardening or its subcategory "Gardens" as appropriate. Delete CalJW 19:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Your proposed solution sounds reasonable to me. -- EncycloPetey 15:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the subcats are of the form "Wikipedians in...", which doesn't imply that such users are Canadian. (E.g. I'm a Wikpedian in Toronto, but I'm not Canadian.) Admittedly there's an issue with Category:Canadian Wikipedian Expatriates -- alternative suggestions for a name solicited. --Trovatore 18:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, for consistency, p.s. it is ok to use a bot to modify user page categories isn't it? Martin 17:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. Honbicot 23:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus/Rename See closure note. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, duplicate categories of the ones already listed in Category:Stars by luminosity class.

• Category:Class-0 stars
• Category:Class-Ia stars
• Category:Class-Ib stars
• Category:Class-II stars
• Category:Class-III stars
• Category:Class-IV stars
• Category:Class-V stars
• Category:Class-VI stars
• Category:Class-VII stars

Are these categories really needed?

• Category:Type-P stars
• Category:Type-Q stars

Also,

• Category:Hypergiants --> Category:Hypergiant stars
• Category:Subdwarf track stars --> Category:Subdwarf stars

--Jyril 18:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP the Class categories as template:Categoryredirects. or, merge and category redirect the "filled" categories into the listed "Class" as less ambiguous names (ie. (normal) Giant v Bright Giant v Supergiant v Hypergiant v Subgiant ; dwarf v red dwarf v white dwarf v brown dwarf) 132.205.45.148 20:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Class-Ia and Ib are subtypes of Class-I/Supergiants

Well of course, but do you think that a layman knows what a type B class III star means? Even if he has only a vague grasp on astronomy, a blue giant star sounds more familiar. We should avoid jargon when it can be described otherwise. There is naturally some ambiguity when dwarf/giant terms are used, and especially the colors aren't real, but it is not a problem if we stay consistent. And they are correct terms used in astronomical literature. About Ia/Ib stars, I don't think we need different categories for those -- especially as many stars are borderline cases.--Jyril 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note no consensus to delete class sub-cats, no change. Renaming latter two cats as there was no opposition. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename all. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to standardise the word order. In most cases, including all the by country categories, "university" already comes first. The exceptions are:

• Category:Lists of colleges and universities → Category:Lists of universities and colleges
• Category:College and University dormitories → Category:University and college dormitories
• Category:Fictional colleges and universities → Category:Fictional universities and colleges
• Category:Colleges and universities by religious affiliation → Category:Universities and colleges by religious affiliation
  

Rename all CalJW 17:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all The Tom 22:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless proven otherwise As far as I can see the present wording seems to be more common, particularly in Category:Lists of colleges and universities. Martin 09:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as proposed. Martin is confusing articles and categories. Honbicot 23:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Martin 09:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No articles in category, no links to category Thejesterx 17:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I can tell from the article (Guinevere Jones), there are no other articles to go in this category. siafu 18:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep However, it is a speedy rename candidate. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and repeated in The Chris Moyles Show anyway.

• Oppose reason I created it was that when improving the Chris Moyles and The Chris Moyles Show pages (whilst questioning the need for both pages, to go a bit off topic), I wasn't aware of or expecting there to be pages for the other team members; its simply a way of linking these people when you reach an article about one of them... see no harm in that Robdurbar 16:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Category:The Chris Moyles Show team members. --Daniel Lawrence 11:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Daniel Lawrence (pluralization and capitalization). siafu 22:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Martin 09:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category for two coins, can just as easily go into United States Coins or something like that. Staxringold 03:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Currently only has two articles, but there's plenty of room for expansion. I can think of at least a couple of other commemorative coins that the US has issued, and I'm not a numismatist and have never lived in the US. I suspect there are likely to be quite a few of these that are waiting to be written about. The United States commemorative coin article (which I've added to this category) lists about half a dozen and mentions an ongoing programme of five issues per year. This could easily fill up. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Please keep this category so that it won't have to be recreated once articles for commemorative coins are written. I have these on my to-do-list, but there are also a lot of other articles I'm planning on working first. The bottom line here, though, is that it doesn't make sense to delete categories that can or will be expanded. --Kurthalomieu J. McCool 05:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per previous votes. Palmiro | Talk 14:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify, that would make it more comprehensive. Radiant_>|< 16:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and list per Radiant; when there are more articles perhaps a category would be warranted. siafu 22:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since this list can be expanded quite easily: Just from 1982 to the present, there have been 84 different commemoratives issued by the United States Mint. Perhaps the link I provided can be useful to help the category expand a little bit more. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WikiProject Numismatics is waking up after a period of dormancy and will eventually populate the category. A separate category is needed for commemmorative coins so as to distinguish them from coins intended for circulation. --TantalumTelluride 05:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep if only two coins are currently in this catagory, that represents about 5% that can be in this catagory. Give us time and it'll be up to speed. Joe I 05:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per all of the above. There's a lot of people working on this, so give them time. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Bring it up on CfD again in six months or a year if we haven't managed to populate it.--chris.lawson 02:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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