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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Academic Challenger. - EurekaLott 00:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LSU Lady Tigers Basketball Coaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Transferred from PROD, as PROD does not and should not handle categories 132.205.93.88 22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a category for this that uses the accepted capitalization standard; see: Category:LSU Lady Tigers basketball coaches – 04:44, 1 August 2006 user:Seancp

• Speedy, as an empty duplicate of Category:LSU Lady Tigers basketball coaches. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like a speedy delete to me.--Mike Selinker 23:20, 1 August 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Toronto. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Mereda 13:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 13:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC), withdrawn 23:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Kmsiever 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it's worth, the reason there were two categories is because some editors thought it necessary to use the category system to distinguish people native to Toronto from people associated with Toronto but native to somewhere else. I'm not aware of any other city where this is considered either a necessary or an accepted distinction to draw using the category system. Merge per nom. Bearcat 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re being native to (i.e. at least born in) and/or associated with a place, cf. People by city CfD on August 5.

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 regarding 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 18:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wekepedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• No Vote, Procedural nomination (moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wekepedians) alphaChimp ^laudare 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Original deletion reason on AfD: "I'm not sure if this is the correct route for this, but it appears to be a response to an edit war the user who created this category is involved in. Nuttah68 21:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
• Delete: No use, except as a dig/attack. Does not improve the project in any way, nor aim to. Thanks/wangi 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Does Wikipedia want well-educated, knowledgeable and expert contributors, who know what they are writing about and are experts in their fields? If, so I suggest keeping this user category to help encourage those put off by edit attacks from people who have little knowledge of the subject matter of the contributions and insist on forcing their own private agendas onto the Wikipedia project. Quality contributors contributing quality contributions as our contribution to a quality Wikipedia is what this user category is all about! Mallimak 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Perhaps consider assuming good faith, and trying to resolve edit disputes rather than escalating them and further disrupting the project. There are plenty of WikiProjects with well defined aims. Wikipedia:Wekepedians' notice board needs to be MfD'd too. Thanks/wangi 22:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete personal attack/arrogance. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, remember? Classing wikipedians into "well-educated, knowledgeable and expert", and "other", will divide the project. We are not a geniocracy; we are wiki. There's always Nupedia for the wekepedians. Picaroon9288|ta co 22:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  (Oh, wait, no there isn't; it died. Picaroon9288|ta co 22:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete as a violation of WP:POINT. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is editing and there is editing. Mallimak 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 05:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not the time for this. Unlikely to succeed. Someday maybe there will be some real method of supporting recognized experts, this doesn't appear to be it. Herostratus 05:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Suddenly, the article on the Orkney Antiquarian Society has been deleted by Royboycrashfan with no discussion. This was an article on a recognised learned society that published a proceedings for a number of years, contributed to by leading Orcadian scholars of its day. It is precisely this kind of behaviour which demonstrates the need for Wekepedians. Mallimak 08:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One invented adn uses it. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 10:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category is against the spirit of Wikipedia, and may even break the policy to be civil. --Cswrye 05:40, 8 August 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 regarding 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 18:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Friends of Telly's Dean Gaffney ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, totally unencyclopaedic, I think this is some kind of joke? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic nonsense. --musicpvm 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 18:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• V. funny, but I guess will have to be deleted. – Jared Preston 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Michael 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cat was created by User:Chevco who also created an article on a non-notable DJ, which i've tagged for speedy delete: Phil 'Mince Philip' Daley. Thanks/wangi 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Herostratus 05:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Silly without even the saving grace of being funny. Zastrozzi 09:38 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous pizza restaurants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, How do you differentiate between an entry in this category versus its parent Category:Pizzerias ? Brian G 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete extremely POV. --musicpvm 18:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective --Bookgrrl 21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Pizzerias. Vegaswikian 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All of its contents are in category:pizzerias.--Mike Selinker 23:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV and open to abuse for promotional purposes. Olborne 13:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If a pizza restaurant merits an article in Wikipedia, it's a given that it's probably famous. bd2412 T 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge to Category:Democratic Party (United States) to get rid of POV "famous", until a better name can be found (note, both Category:Democratic Party (United States) and Category:Republican Party (United States) contain people. --Kbdank71 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Democrats ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Category has only 6 members. No way to ever make this fully inclusive. Also generally a red flag when Category begins with Famous..... --Brian G 18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I saw this category and found it moderately ridiculous. Were it populated, it might be a bit better, but that task would be quite laborious and difficult... Michael 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too subjective (how famous? famous for what? for how long?) --Bookgrrl 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (change of vote) Rename per Vegaswikian, also create corresponding Category:Republican Party (United States) members to head off future inconsistency. Although the list may get out of date when somebody switches parties... --Bookgrrl 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would at least like the name better than the existing one, but I would still have concerns about populating the category. Would someone have to go through all the bios of every member of every congressional district through inception to add them all to the appropriate party category? What about state politics? What about re-introducing celebrities? What about Independents, ......? --Brian G 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there is no requirement to add entries to a category, it's just something that happens. State categories could be added if the parent grows. The question is, is this a reasonable way to cagegorize politicants, the answer is likely a yes. If there is a need to do this on a state level, the state cat should have two parents, the one here and the other being Category:fooian politicians. Vegaswikian 02:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Democratic Party (United States) members or Category:Members of the Democratic Party (United States). I could not find a cat that covers this grouping. Vegaswikian 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vegaswikian Sumahoy 22:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Classifying politicians by party could be useful, but the political leanings of most celebrities not named Bono are trivial and should not be used as a basis for categorization. - EurekaLott 00:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vegaswikian. User:Arual 18:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per EurekaLott, as party membership is not easy to verify, either.-choster 14:54, 7 August 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Gliding to Category:Gliding in the United States

• Rename, for consistency with other subcats of Category:Gliding and Category:Aviation in the United States and all other sports etc. Vclaw 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Remame per nom. --musicpvm 21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 05:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above plus capitaliz/sation. David Kernow 13:29, 2 August 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 regarding 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 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch Ice skaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Empty and misnamed. The correct categories are Category:Dutch figure skaters and Category:Dutch speed skaters. Honbicot 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Mike Selinker 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 13:29, 2 August 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 regarding 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 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:NC State Routes WikiProject Members
  • Remove: Beacause it has been moved to Category:WikiProject North Carolina State Highways members. --TinMan 05:00, 1 August 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lethbridgians to Category:People from Lethbridge, Alberta

• Rename, Consistent with other Canadian cities. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 24. Kmsiever 15:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. CFD discussion referred to above resulted in "rename all". Agent 86 16:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This should be speediable by now, after the multiple mass-demonym renaming approvals. Kurieeto 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Someone who's less lazy than me, please take up Kurieeto's suggestion and add or formally propose adding demonyms to the speedy rename list. --M@rēino 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per previous discussions. --musicpvm 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but also redirect Category:Lethbridgians to Category:People from Lethbridge, Alberta. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Michael 05:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Landolitan 21:33, 2 August 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 regarding 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/merge Category:Books of fiction as nominated, keep Category:Fictional books --Kbdank71 18:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books of fiction to Category:Fiction books
Category:Fictional books to Category:Imaginary books

• Rename, Consistency with Category:Non-fiction books, and to avoid possible confusion between Category:Fiction books and Category:Fictional books. Intangible 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both these as per nomination. "Fictional books" is already being heavily used for "Fiction books" (solution: establish the proposed Category:Imaginary books for the original purpose. then establish the proposed more conventionally named Category:Fiction books (also for consistency with Category:Non-fiction books as mentioned above) for works of fiction.) :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "imaginary books". category:Fictional books is a subcategory of category:Fictional works, and should not use a different word. I'd prefer to just make the category text clear as to what it's for.--Mike Selinker 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe it is best to rename that whole hierarchy? Along the lines of "imaginary works"?Intangible 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly the point. The word "Fictional" is too ambiguous in meaning. Is is fiction in itself (does not exist) or does it exist but contain fictional subject matter (exists but content doesn't). category:Fictional works sould be renamed as well, consistency should be maintained but in this case doesn't nullify the rationale for the change. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the first to Category:Fiction books and keep the second as Category:Fictional books. --musicpvm 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Imaginary books. The name implies that the books don't exist. Honbicot 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Entirely correct, that is exactly what the category is "meant" to contain. The comment precisely demonstrates the problem the use of this term produces. "Imaginary" is clearer, unless someone can think of a better one. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. None of the books in Category:Fictional books can be found in a library. Fictional, or fictitious, means imaginary. Intangible 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually these imaginary books can be found in imaginary libraries. See for example: the Necronomicon. Bejnar 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename books of fiction -> fiction books for consistency's sake. Keep fictional books -- I think this makes it sufficiently clear that we are in fact talking about books that do not exist (e.g. the Necronomicon), and it matches the name of the main article fictional books. --Bookgrrl 21:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the mistake someone has already made about its use above! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Books of fiction per nom, but keep Category:Fictional books, at least for time being. David Kernow 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we have to rename for consistency then rename Category:Non-fiction books to Category:Books non-fiction. The suggested rename is confusing. See the discussion of Non-Fictional Egyptian books on August 2nd. Bejnar 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't believe that the suggested rename is at all confusing - however the quoted debate at Non-Fictional Egyptian books certain does fit the bill, it IS confusing. It is perhaps unhelpful that two categories have been listed together. One listing just aims at consistency Category:Fiction books. The other (the second) aims to remove that ambigous category name --> Category:Imaginary books. The need has been made self evident by its (Category:Fictional books) use for "Fiction" books and the mixed discussion here. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Books of fiction. Keep Category:Fictional books. -Sean Curtin 21:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Books of fiction to Category:Fiction books, keep Category:Fictional books, and ensure that there's a clear definition on the respective category pages. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Perhaps the phrase they meant to say when they named Category:Fictional books was Category:Fictitious books. GUllman 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both, but Category:Fictional books to Category:Fictitious books. feydey 10:03, 8 August 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 regarding 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 see alternate proposal below, under Dodge fans heading. --Kbdank71 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chevy fans to Category:Wikipedians interested in Chevy

• Rename. Change to fit naming conventions for Wikipedian categories. Cswrye 03:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that the purpose of this category is to show support for the Chevrolet racing team (which is why it used the term "fans"). In light of that, I would like to change my name recommendation to Category:Wikipedian Chevrolet fans and recommend that this category be moved to the appropriate sports-related subcategory. --Cswrye 02:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I'm changing my support to the alternate proposal by Mike Selinker below. --Cswrye 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Chevrolets per norm. --The.Modificator 22:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Chevrolets" is not what the category is about. It's the organization called Chevy Racing that's the focus here. See the alternate proposal below.--Mike Selinker 05:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Alternate rename proposal below. --Royalbroil 19:13, 2 August 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 regarding 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/merge to Wikipedian X fans --Kbdank71 16:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dodge fans to Category:Wikipedians interested in Dodge

• Rename to the standard naming convention for Wikipedian categories. Cswrye 02:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that the purpose of this category is to show support for the Dodge racing team (which is why it used the term "fans"). In light of that, I would like to change my name recommendation to Category:Wikipedian Dodge fans and recommend that this category be moved to the appropriate sports-related subcategory. --Cswrye 02:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I'm changing my support to the alternate proposal by Mike Selinker below. --Cswrye 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. No debate necessary, I think. Luna Santin 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be. These are fans of sports teams just like the Dodgers, so they should probably follow the "Wikipedian X fans" convention we set up with Category:Wikipedian New England Patriots fans (and never followed through on, cuz it's a hell of a lot of work). There's also category:Tony Stewart fans, category:Carl Edwards fans, and category:V8 Supercar fans to consider.--Mike Selinker 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this about Wikipedians interested in Dodge (city) or Dodge (Daimler-Chrysler) ?...
    • The car. (It's interesting that without thinking I picked the Dodgers as a counterexample...)--Mike Selinker 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate rename proposal. Here's what I think should be done:
  • Category:Chevy fans to Category:Wikipedian Chevy Racing fans
  • Category:Dodge fans to Category:Wikipedian Dodge Racing fans
  • Category:Tony Stewart fans to Category:Wikipedian Tony Stewart fans
  • Category:Carl Edwards fans to Category:Wikipedian Carl Edwards fans
  • Category:V8 Supercar fans to Category:Wikipedian V8 Supercar fans
  • Category:Holden fans to Category:Wikipedian Holden Racing Team fans
  • Category:Ford fans to Category:Wikipedian Ford Racing fans

This parallels the sports team category proposals I made today.--Mike Selinker 05:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's also Category:Holden fans. - EurekaLott

Those appear to be fans of the cars, not fans of the racing body (if there is one for Holden).--Mike Selinker 17:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I (probably mistakenly) filed it under Category:Wikipedians by transportation, but the userbox that populates it is listed in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports. - EurekaLott 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, EL. The body is called Holden Racing Team. I've added this entry to the list, as well as one for Ford.--Mike Selinker 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per Alternate rename proposal above. --Royalbroil 19:14, 2 August 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 regarding 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/merge to Category:Wikipedians who are Ducky-approved --Kbdank71 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ducky Approved ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Nonsense Wikipedian category. Also doesn't fit the proper naming conventions for Wikipedian categories, so it should at least be renamed. Cswrye 02:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not "Rename to the standard naming convention for Wikipedian categories,", that is, Category:Wikipedians who are Ducky-Approved? --M@rēino 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this category is not deleted, then I agree that it should be renamed. I would recommend Category:Wikipedians who are Ducky-approved. However, I still think that this category doesn't make sense and serves no purpose, so in my opinion, it should be deleted. --Cswrye 05:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Viridae^Talk 05:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Herostratus 05:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's pointless. (But if it's kept, it should be renamed as above.) —Mira 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless nonsense. Osomec 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename See Mareino's comment.
• Rename See Mareino's comment. The Ducky is too fun to delete :P Rohan 17:25, 7 August 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 regarding 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 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DataSynapse ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, The category was created by a user who appears to be trying to promote the company. I don't think it belongs because there are not enough noteworthy articles (or articles that could be created) relating to this company. Wmahan. 02:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Permanent microcat? Very few companies are truly worth having their own categories. Wikilinks and mentions at the company page seem to suffice, if we're only looking at two products, here. Luna Santin 03:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikiproject spam noticed these article sets. 2 of the articles are under prod by me (and also prod2 by an anon apparently) This will soon be a cat with one article. Its part of the spam linking. Kevin_b_er 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided This doesn't seem to be any different than what other vendors like IBM, Quest, Wily, etc. have done. I would agree there is not enough products, but there are plenty of other vendors I've found that are salesy like Wily Technology. HouKid 09:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I think the content is of interest, especially to the financial services company I work for. So, rather than delete, I would propose merging the content and reducing the external links. HouKid 12:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)comment added by 12.158.31.82 (talk • contribs)[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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psionic Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians interested in psionics

• Rename. this name better describes the category and is more consistent with similar categories. Also, it's what is in the description and the accompanying userbox for this category. Cswrye 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency with others in Category:Wikipedians by interest. Luna Santin 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 04:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. If they really were psionic, they would be using their mind rays to stop me from typing this. --M@rēino 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename So obviously we need two categories Category:Wikipedians interested in psionics and Category:Wikipedians with psionic powers, since the original category was ambiguous. Bejnar 23:02, 4 August 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 regarding 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 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aileurophiles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, misspelling on my part, user:Ashley Y has created a corrected one. Chris 00:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom's mention of Category:Ailurophiles, for redundancy/spelling. Luna Santin 03:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 19:37, 1 August 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.