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 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counties of Latvia to Category:Districts of Latvia

The category's membership appears to consist of districts. David Kernow 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Mike Christie (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename' per nom Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:40, 19 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 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neapolitan history to Category:History of Naples

• Rename, to standardise in line with the others in Category:history by city. Honbicot 21:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Honbicot. — Reinyday, 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per Honbicot. Mike Christie (talk) 01:02, 18 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 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Xiaolin Showdown great stoles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, No reason to further categorize the individual episodes of the series. Only four articles, probably won't be getting more. Jay32183 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as overcategorization. --musicpvm 20:53, 17 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 20:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CPSU conventions to Category:Congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

• Rename, the main article is Congress of the CPSU and all but one of its articles are of the form "Nth Congress of the P." It is also better to spell out the abbreviation. choster 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per choster. — Reinyday, 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom, much enamored as I am of the idea of Leonid and Yuri knockin' em down at the hotel bar and macking on the waitresses. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 10:51, 18 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 20:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the following should be renamed. See this discussion and the discussion below. Most of these are placed under subcats of Category:Record labels instead of Category:Artists by record label where they belong as they contain artists. If they are renamed, I will move them to the correct categories. --musicpvm 19:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Aftermath Entertainment to Category:Aftermath Entertainment artists
• Category:The Inc Records to Category:The Inc. Records artists
• Category:Bad Boy to Category:Bad Boy Records artists
• Category:Astralwerks to Category:Astralwerks artists
• Category:Sub Pop to Category:Sub Pop artists
• Category:Quannum Projects to Category:Quannum Projects artists
• Category:4AD Records to Category:4AD artists
  • Support. We need to go through and make sure that the only things they contain are artists, of course.--Mike Selinker 01:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support tho' I shoudl note that Category:4AD Records is alsmost empty in favor of Category:4AD artists already, so rather than a rename, I think a deletion is in order for that one. (OTOH, isn't that how a category rename works anyway? Populate new, delete old?) --Geoff Capp 11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• UPDATE: I finished the Quannum Records one, and crossed out the tag above. The main category should stay since both albums and artists feed into it.--Mike Selinker 14:06, 27 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be divided between Category:British bass guitarists and Category:Double-bassists. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_7#Bassists_and_Bass_guitarists.2C_Expert_help_needed. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Between Category:British bass guitarists and Category:British double-bassists, surely? If so, support.

Grutness...wha? 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far it looks to me like the bass guitarists outnumber the double-bassists by a huge amount. Certainly no objection to breaking down double-bassists by nationality, and I started on that and then realized that I had no idea of how many there really are -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Grutness. --Mais oui! 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion - as I mentioned in the similar topic for Category:American bassists, it's likely some articles mention a person "plays bass" or "is a bassist", but don't specify which exact instrument they play. This parent category is therefore useful for holding the ambiguous articles and stubs until they can be expanded with more specific information on the particular instrument. Dugwiki 21:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If we don't know what instrument they play, we shouldn't be classifying them by instrument. Simply call them Category:British musicians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if the article calls them a "bassist" then you DO know they play one of a handful of instruments. So you can still accurately subcategorize them as "bassists" as opposed to lumping them in with all the other thousands of "musicians". Dugwiki 17:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dugwiki. --Usgnus 13:57, 22 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be divided between Category:Welsh bass guitarists and Category:Double-bassists. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Between Category:Welsh bass guitarists and Category:Welsh double-bassists, surely? If so, support. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can name a Welsh double-bassist with a wikipedia article, then yes, absolutely. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Grutness. --Mais oui! 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion - see the similar discussions for Category:British bassists and Category:American bassists for my reasoning (that the parent category is probably necessary for articles that don't specify a particular instrument.)Dugwiki 21:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If we don't know what instrument they play, then we have no business classifying them by instrument. Simply call them Category:Welsh musicians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if the article calls them a "bassist" then you DO know they play one of a handful of instruments. So you can still accurately subcategorize them as "bassists" as opposed to lumping them in with all the other thousands of "musicians". Dugwiki 17:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dugwiki. --Usgnus 13:58, 22 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be divided between Category:Double-bassists and Category:Scottish bass guitarists. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Between Category:Scottish bass guitarists and Category:Scottish double-bassists, surely? If so, support. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can name a Scottish double-bassist with a wikipedia article, then yes, absolutely. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Grutness. --Mais oui! 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion - see the similar discussions for Category:British bassists and Category:American bassists for my reasoning (that the parent category is probably necessary for articles that don't specify a particular instrument.)Dugwiki 21:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If we don't know what instrument they play, then we have no business classifying them by instrument. Simply call them Category:Scottish musicians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if the article calls them a "bassist" then you DO know they play one of a handful of instruments. So you can still accurately subcategorize them as "bassists" as opposed to lumping them in with all the other thousands of "musicians". Dugwiki 17:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dugwiki. --Usgnus 13:58, 22 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be divided between Category:English bass guitarists and Category:Double-bassists. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Between Category:English bass guitarists and Category:English double-bassists, surely? If so, support. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can identify an English double-bassist with a wikipedia article, then yes, absolutely. ProveIt ^(talk) 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Grutness. --Mais oui! 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion - see the similar discussions for Category:British bassists and Category:American bassists for my reasoning (that the parent category is probably necessary for articles that don't specify a particular instrument.)Dugwiki 21:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If we don't know what instrument they play, then we have no business classifying them by instrument. Simply call them Category:English musicians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if the article calls them a "bassist" then you DO know they play one of a handful of instruments. So you can still accurately subcategorize them as "bassists" as opposed to lumping them in with all the other thousands of "musicians". Dugwiki 17:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dugwiki. --Usgnus 13:59, 22 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 20:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Rock bassists by nationality to Category:Rock bass guitarists by nationality
• Category:English rock bassists to Category:English rock bass guitarists
• Category:British rock bassists to Category:British rock bass guitarists
• Category:American rock bassists to Category:American rock bass guitarists
• Category:Canadian rock bassists to Category:Canadian rock bass guitarists
• Category:Australian rock bassists to Category:Australian rock bass guitarists

Continuing attempt to refactor bassists. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all. --Geoff Capp 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Hawkestone 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible oppose - If there are rock musicians who play double-bass (surely a rare breed) then I oppose the renaming. The reason is that it would lump the rock double-bassists in with the rock bass guitarists. I know there are rock violinists, but I'm not sure if there are any rock double-bassists. Interesting question....Dugwiki 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. Herbie Flowers, Danny Thompson... Grutness...wha? 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Grutness. --Usgnus 06:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Divide Category:American rock bassists between Category:American rock bass guitarists, Category:American rock double-bassists and Category:American rock musicians -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:25, 24 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Jazz double-bassists. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible oppose - as with Rock bassists above, I'm concerned there might be jazz bass guitarists (ie jazz players who use electric guitar). They'd be rare, but articles about them exist then you'd be lumping them in with the jazz double-bassists, which is technically not correct. Dugwiki 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide between Category:Jazz double-bassists, Category:Jazz bass guitarists, and Category:Jazz musicians as appropriate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:54, 19 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 go for it. I have no idea how to divide this. Let me know when it's empty. --Kbdank71 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Rock bass guitarists, except for double bass players. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Divide between Category:Rock bass guitarists, Category:Rock double-bassists and Category:Rock musicians as appropriate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:04, 19 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 20:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be refactored. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:47, 17 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 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, only member is Category:Australian bass guitarists. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:38, 17 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 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monotonous fictional characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Redundant category already covered by Category:Unemotional fictional characters. At first glance most if not all if the names here are already listed there, and the criteria for listing is pretty arbitrary -- either the character shows no excitement (and is therefore de facto unemotional) or "boring" which requires a bit of POV. 23skidoo 17:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'd feel differently if this cat were filled with people who speak in monotone due to some defect in their voice box, but it looks like it's all "boring" characters and therefore complete POV. --M@rēino 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems subjective, POV, and not just a little fancrufty. KleenupKrew 02:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:46, 25 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contents should be divided between Category:Bass guitarists by nationality and Category:Double-bassists by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_7#Bassists_and_Bass_guitarists.2C_Expert_help_needed. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oppose deletion - see the similar discussions for Category:British bassists and Category:American bassists for my reasoning (that the parent category is probably necessary for articles that don't specify a particular instrument.)Dugwiki 21:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, keeping the current category as a parent of two subcategories seems the sensible way to go, both for this and in the individual nationality cases listed above. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we don't know what instruments a musician plays, then we shouldn't be categorizing them by instrument. We should simply call them musicians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But if the article calls them a "bassist" then you DO know they play one of a handful of instruments. So you can still accurately subcategorize them as "bassists" as opposed to lumping them in with all the other thousands of "musicians". Dugwiki 17:00, 21 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 20:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to refactor Bassists -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion - see the similar discussions for Category:British bassists and Category:American bassists for my reasoning (that the parent category is probably necessary for articles that don't specify a particular instrument.)Dugwiki 21:38, 18 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 19:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Text computer and video games (input) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, There is already Category:Interactive fiction, which is defined as "text-based computer and video games"; of which the nominated category's only entry (Zork) is already a prime example of. Marasmusine 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carina22 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Marasmusine and title's awkwardness. David Kernow 12:29, 24 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 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Search engines had a mix of random stuff in it. I sorted through the mess and everything ended up fitting into more specific categories. Category:Internet search engines is the right place for general Internet search engines. I created Category:Search engine software to make an unambiguous home for that sort of thing. It looks to me like Category:Search engines and Category:Search engine websites should be merged. Since neither actually have any articles, it might be a good idea to further merge the contents of both into Category:Searching. -- Beland 16:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the categories are jumbled, but be sure that whatever category replaces Category:Search engine websites fits appropriately as a subcategory of Category:Websites. A search engine is not the same thing as a the website which interfaces to the search engine. Yahoo! is not a search engine; it's a website, and one of its many functions is searching. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do all (notable) search engines exist on websites, or, for example, are there some standalone search engine programs?  If so, I guess Category:Search engine programs required. For those search engines accessed via websites, suggest Category:Websites featuring search engines to cover both websites with content other than search engines and those that are only search engines (are there any?)  Apologies in advance for any obvious ignorance, David Kernow 12:38, 24 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 19:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blame! to Category:BLAME!

• Rename, The correct spelling of the title is BLAME!. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --DrBat 00:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Support this. --Xedaf 15:28, 27 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 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• category:4AD artists to category:4AD Records artists
• category:Death Row artists to category:Death Row Records artists
• category:Def Jam affiliated performers to category:Def Jam Recordings artists
• category:Fat Possum Artists to category:Fat Possum Records artists
• category:Saddle Creek Records to category:Saddle Creek Records artists
• category:Saddle Creek releases to category:Saddle Creek Records albums
• category:Star Trak Entertainment to category:Star Trak Entertainment artists
• category:Team Love Records to category:Team Love Records artists
• category:ZTT Records artist to category:ZTT Records artists

More of these. The categories have all been sorted correctly, and the Saddle Creek releases category needs to become an albums category. When we're done, though, we will need to look for occasional articles like Spend an Evening with Saddle Creek to make sure they're in an uber-category and not in an artist category.--Mike Selinker 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all as requested for consistency Dugwiki 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename all per nom. Carina22 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --musicpvm 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename most except 4AD. Nowhere on their website will you find any reference to "4AD Records"—there is no such company—they are 4AD, plain and simple. If a rename is necessary it would be 4AD Records to 4AD (recording label). --Geoff Capp 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 4AD one is withdrawn as requested. The article should move too.--Mike Selinker 04:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved the article to 4AD (it was a redir to 4AD Records). There were no double redirects, and I have edited most of the single redirects, while someone else has been busily populating category:4AD artists. --Geoff Capp 11:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You forgot to mention Category:BNA artists to Category:BNA Records artists. TimBentley (talk) 23:43, 27 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 16:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Electronic mailing list
• Category:Marathon
• Category:Virtual community

All contain only themselves, and one more. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge Category:Electronic mailing list into Category:Mailing lists - appears to be a duplicate category of the Mailing lists category (Mailing lists is a subcategory of Category:E-mail and only seems to include E-mail lists).Dugwiki 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge Category:Marathon into Category:Marathoning - duplicate categories Dugwiki 16:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge Category:Virtual community into Category:Virtual communities - again, merge with duplicated category Dugwiki 16:10, 17 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 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villains with good intentions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. This category seems to inherently rely on audience interpretation of the facts about a character, instead of anything which is actually in evidence outside of the character's own delcarations, and given that this list is widely populated with 'crazy' characters, are their own assessments of their motives valid? For example, Hannibal Lecter, human gourmand and mass murderer has 'good intentions' because he wants to reveal things about a victim to others, or to the victim? Or Poison Ivy? She wants to kill all humans so that plant life will do better. TO HER that's a good intention, to the rest of the world, that's xenocide. ThuranX 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For characters like Magneto, it certainly applies. I do think some of the characters there, like Hannibal, don't apply, though. --DrBat 15:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although I understand the general notion here, the criteria for inclusion is way too subjective. Even with Magneto above, does he REALLY have good intentions? At times his intentions are to demonstrate the superiority of the mutant race, which doesn't sound like a very good intention to me. Too hard to objectively verify. Dugwiki 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • His intentions are to free his people from humanity's oppression. --DrBat 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too much of a judgment call. Recury 16:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carina22 17:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Its not "villains who do good deeds". The thing about these villains is they have somewhat noble goals, but villainous ways of pursuing them.--CyberGhostface 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Antivillains maybe, the opposite of the antihero? - LA @ 23:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is such a thing. --DrBat 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There probably should be, but there's not: 150 Google hits. Also, count me as a delete; the cat is subjective and potentially extremely broad. ×Meegs 07:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Hawkestone 10:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. DrBat sums up the problem well, he thinks some of the villains listed are appropriate, some are not. Ergo this is so POV that every listing could be debated - not such a great category. Ifnord 21:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too subjective to determine what to include, and much more trouble than it's worth. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — too subjective. It would be better to use Category:Anti-hero for those appropriate ("An anti-hero in today's books and films will perform acts generally deemed "heroic," but will do so with methods, manners, or intentions that may not be heroic.", from Anti-hero). Mike Peel 07:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tim! 07:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. Someone somewhere should do an article about the "anti-villain" as Lady Aleena coined it, and from there it could expand to an article and category. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:05, 20 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 keep --Kbdank71 16:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is already covered nicely by road running article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It seems to me that there are probably articles about specific Road Running races. Those articles would fit in well with this category. Likewise, articles about particular runners who race a lot of Road Running events, and organizers who put together these events, and Road Running specific organizations, all would fit within this category. So I can see some use for this category; it just needs to be further populated. Dugwiki 16:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, while I hate the way the editors of Dead Runners Society just guessed as to what categories it should go in without checking our structure first, this is a legitimate topic for a category. Agree it should be populated. Recury 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Road race marathons should be added to this category. Cloachland 02:16, 19 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 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a good way to classify baseball players, or even Greek-Americans for that matter. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 10:53, 18 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 listify --Kbdank71 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:100 receiving touchdown club to Category:American football players with 100 or more touchdown receptions

• Rename in accordance with WP:NAME. The phrase "American football players" is slightly problematic as it could refer to Americans who play football (soccer) or those who play American football but I don't know of a very good solution. Suggestions are welcome but it seems clear to me that the current title is way too vague and unencylopedic ("club?"). ElKevbo 13:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be okay with listifying this and the other categories listed below by Meegs assuming their names are also changed. --ElKevbo 06:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this is a good use for categories, whatever their name. There are a number of other statistics categories in Category:American football players that are similar. Among other issues, it is hard to monitor categories to make sure they are correct and complete. If we need to represent these sets of players, it should be in a list or article. ×Meegs 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why not include all of the ...club categories? I wonder if these really belong as categories or would be better kept as a list. If I had to decide now I would probably vote to Listify all of these statistical categories. Vegaswikian 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify this and others per Vegaswikian. Lists can contain info such as games, dates. --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tagged and linked these eight similar categories to this discussion ×Meegs 06:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:100 passing touchdown club
• Category:200 passing touchdown club
• Category:300 passing touchdown club
• Category:40 Interception club
• Category:400 passing touchdown club
• Category:50 Interception club
• Category:50,000 passing yards club
• Category:10,000 rushing yard club

• Delete. That could get crazy very quickly. (Where are all the 50-INT guys? Why not category:60,000 passing yards club, with Mr. Marino as its only member?) Listify if you like.--Mike Selinker 11:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Rename. The 100 and 200 passing touchdown club I think should be kept, along with the 40 and 50 Inteception club and the 10,000 rushing yard club. Their are more players with 50 interceptions but I got three surgery's on my ankle and I'm still trying to do my best. --Phbasketball6 14:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC) I won't mind one little bit if the name is change and if you delete those categories why don't you delete the Category:300 win club and the Category:3000 strikeout club categories while your at it. Not trying to be mean, just trying to make a point. --Phbasketball6 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but there are quite a few baseball cats and it's a bit late in the week. If the football cats are deleted or renamed, though, the subcats of Category:Baseball records should probably follow suit in a different nomination next week. ×Meegs 15:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify. There are too many possibilities here. The Hall of Fame categories cover leading sportspeople fairly well. Cloachland 02:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. Based on the response to my comment above. Vegaswikian 02:13, 20 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 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matching the other subcategories of category:Songs by artist.--Mike Selinker 12:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Cloachland 02:15, 19 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 redirected per nomination. -- nae'blis 00:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't as clear as it might sound, because Harry recorded under both of those names. But it's clearly the same person, so she should have one category. I picked the one matching the article title, but I could go the other way.--Mike Selinker 12:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect one to the other. David Kernow 12:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If the article weren't Debbie, I would have said we should go with Deborah, the name she's used since 1989. Merge to Category:Debbie Harry songs, I suppose. "Debbie Harry" also outgoogles "Deborah Harry" almost two to one. ×Meegs 13:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Category:Deborah Harry songs to Category:Debbie Harry songs per David Kernow. ProveIt ^(talk) 14:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per ProveIt. Mike Christie (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Category:Debbie Harry songs - the category name should match the name of the associated main article, which in this case is Debbie Harry. Dugwiki 16:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Debbie Harry, definitely. She rocked under the name Debbie until 1989 -- and she's pretty much done nothing worth listening to since then. Which name do you think the average reader will look for? --M@rēino 21:44, 18 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 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Italy with their own subcategory to Category:Cities and towns in Italy with their own category

• Rename, I created this just now because the major cities that most people will look for were getting lost in the regional categories, and outside of Italy probably many people don't know which region each major Italian city is located in. However the "sub" is redundant - looked at in its own light each category is just a category. Honbicot 12:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carina22 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:47, 25 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 Tim! 10:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eurovision host cities ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Having hosted Eurovision is not a defining characteristic of a major city. Honbicot 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, certainly not. Recury 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carina22 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 20:55, 17 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 Tim! 10:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alpha world cities (full service world cities) - GaWC Inventory of World Cities (1999 Edition) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This is based on a ranking of cities, which is better covered by a list. It has only one entry in any case. Honbicot 12:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Recury 17:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 10:53, 18 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 merge Tim! 10:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman Movie And Tv Actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, duplicate of Category:Batman actors. SevereTireDamage 09:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom. David Kernow 12:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom. Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete the duplicate category per above. Dugwiki 16:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom. ThuranX 17:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge/Delete per nom. Carina22 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & delete per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & delete per nom. Chicheley 21:04, 20 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 not tagged, relisted here --Kbdank71 16:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign words into Category:English words of foreign origin

• Merge, a fork. While we are here, we also have to merge category:Dutch words into Category:Dutch loanwords, etc., and rename Category:Latin words and the likes. Or do it vice versa, but kill the damn multipronged fork.

If someone is going to provide and rationale for the status quo, let me tell them that vast majority of contributors are not expert linguists and eventually screw up any smart division, with so many foreign words here to come. E.g., Category:Latin words is an vast abyss or abysmal vastness. `'mikka (t) 08:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Many of the words are not English words of any kind. Rename Category:Words by language. Casper Claiborne 10:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "(English) words by language of origin"...?  Regards, David Kernow 12:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Words by language. No claim is made that these words have migrated into English. Carina22 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Words by language per Carina. That's about the most obvious subcategory to have in Category:words, but it is missing. Cloachland 02:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Words by language per Carina22. Mike Peel 08:09, 19 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 16:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User time zones into Category:Time zone user templates

Category:GMT user templates into Category:Time zone user templates

• Merge, To bring them inline with similar categories. - LA @ 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is it your intent that your new template will make all of these templates depreciated? If so, I suggest that this be withdrawn for now and then in a bit, after people have time to switch to the new one, all of the templates and the 2 existing categories could be deleted. --Brian G (Talk) 12:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is exactly my intent, but the TfD will not be started for a few more days, so let's get all of the user templates in one place since they probably won't get deleted for another two weeks. - LA @ 23:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 14:39, 20 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 Tim! 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:National High Adventure bases (Boy Scouts of America) to Category:National camps (Boy Scouts of America). Mortimer L. Schiff Scout Reservation wasn't a High Adventure base, but it was a national rather than local camp. Chris 01:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Rlevse 02:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (lead coordinator of ScoutingWikiProject)[reply]
• Support and it can be speedy ... --evrik 14:03, 17 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 Merge into Category:Irish representative peers Tim! 10:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Peers of Ireland. Are these the same thing? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! See Representative peer. How about a merge to Category:Irish representative peers, the partner of Category:Scottish representative peers? --Mais oui! 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Category:Irish representative peers per Mais oui! Casper Claiborne 10:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Irish representative peers per Mais oui! -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Irish representative peers per Mais oui! Nathan Mercer 10:48, 25 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 merge Tim! 10:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Bradford Bulls Players or Category:Bradford Bulls players, depending on the speed of the speedy rename. Usual policy is against current / former categories, based on the dificulty of keeping them up to date. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Just about all of our sports cats follow this rule. ×Meegs 01:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to speedily-renamed Category:Bradford Bulls players per nom. David Kernow 12:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carina22 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Wikipedia policy. GregorB 21:45, 25 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 14:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, real people will become characters in alternate history novels. However, we should not categorize real historical figures based on their presence or actions in a fictional universe. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete. Not an important characteristic of these people, but worth a list. Grutness...wha? 05:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify per Grutness. David Kernow 12:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Recury 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, quite inappropriate to have to notice this in high-profile articles such as Adolf Hitler. Sandstein 19:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Those persons are wiki-linked on the respective "Birmoverse" (which BTW is quite a cryptic term) articles or listed in a sub-section in that articles - we need neither a separate list nor a category. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:00, 25 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 14:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piccadilly Circus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, after all the stubs were merged back into this aritcle, the parent article in the only article in the category. Peta 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:56, 17 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.