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

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 14:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the older category. South Africa has a category:soccer in South Africa category because rugby union is a very prominent football code there. Choalbaton 23:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Agree. "Football" is an ambiguous term. There is a consensus to refer to this sport as Football (soccer) wherever it is mentioned. — Feb. 26, '06 [07:24] <freakofnur_xture|>
  • No there isn't. Choalbaton 13:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.-choster 16:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 14:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created on Jan 7, rationale (from Talk page) is: a bit of a strange category yes but no stranger than "Vegetarians" - cat lovers are few and far between and sometimes their pets have influences on their works or personalities.

• Keep but rename. It's no stupider than any other "fun facts" categories. Change it to cat fanciers or something.--Elec 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote from me but I laughed a lot seeing it. Pavel Vozenilek 22:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are not few and far between, but this is rarely what people are known for, and it is not important enough to justify a category, especially for people who have several already. Golfcam 22:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic. People generally do not gain notability for their love of cats. Also the word "lovers" seems awkward at best, and inherently unverifiable at worst. For the persons presently categorized as cat lovers, are there reputable sources that unequivocally state that the person's fondness of cats rose to the level of cat-love, measured by some objective standard? Or is this merely a peacocky term for people who keep cats as pets? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename or "move to a list". Someone obviously put a lot of work into this list. People are interested in this topic. Just because YOU aren't interested in the information is no reason to deprive others of access to it. "Cat Fanciers" is the traditional term to apply to such people. A rename would do just fine. pat8722 04:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I think there is sufficient reference value in a category of people known by their affection for, ownership of or association with cats to make it worth keeping and getting the name focussed. "Cat Fanciers" doesn't seem quite right either - not sure that it really describes Dr Johnson, T S Eliot or Louis Wain. "People known for their association with cats" is horribly clunky, but that is the meaning that it's necessary to bring out. Staffelde 13:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename. This is an interesting and eclectic category. Let's have more like this if well done, as appears to be the case here. Jonathan Bowen 23:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or listify. Useless as a category because absent context or explanation, it is not clear what it means to say that someone is a "cat lover." Postdlf 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename. Delete per above since a "lover" of anything is so subjective. But if it could be renamed to something with more parameters like "Cat-oriented paleontologists", I might support a keep.
• Delete Except in the zoophilic sense no objective criteria for who belongs and who doesn't. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 14:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main article of this category, rapid transit, evolved out of a page move/scoping edit war that resolved early last year after getting bounced around from metro to subway to the unwieldy attempted compromise urban heavy rail, due to variations in local usage (please note this is not an American/Commonwealth English issue, for the most part. For instance, compare the two largest American systems, New York City Subway and Washington Metro.) Since the adoption of rapid transit as the accepted term on Wikipedia, it has garnered significant support, lacking inherent bias in both geography and dialect. However, the category has mostly languished in the meantime, and remains at the potentially confusing Category:Metro. This category and its immediate subcats (listed below) should be renamed to replace the generic usage of metro or metros with rapid transit for consistency with the main article and common usage.

• Category:Metro
• Category:Abandoned metro stations
• Category:Metros in Africa
• Category:Metros in Asia
• Category:Metros in Europe
• Category:Metros in North America
• Category:Metros in South America
• Category:Metro stations
• Category:Metro stubs Stub category will be discussed separately on WP:SFD.

• Rename all CComMack 21:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: in Europe the term Metro is common and historical. But it is better to be consistent, IMO. Pavel Vozenilek 23:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irredeemably POV. -choster 21:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Her Pegship 22:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 22:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Schizombie 04:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - propaganda list and subjective to boot. --MacRusgail 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 07:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty; appears to be a duplicate of the better-named Category:Politicians of African nations. -choster 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Honbicot 15:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While being an African politician and being a politician of an African nation are not the same thing, the difference is addressed under the subcats of Category:Politicians of African nations.--Esprit15d 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not actually for Mexican ports— which would then be Category:Ports and harbours in Mexico— but about port cities. Rename proposed for specificity and capitalization. -choster 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 07:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this category was created in error to contain Syed Mohammad Hadi properly listed under Category:Alumni of Cambridge University; the description is copied from List of University of Cambridge people. - choster 17:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d 18:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was already speedied. Syrthiss 14:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:Lakes of Bulgaria, which conforms to the established naming practice for such categories

• Speedy delete, delist. Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Syrthiss 14:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this left over from a previous CFR? It evidently formerly contained 3 articles by is now an empty duplicate of Category:Armies of the Confederate States of America. - choster 15:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Remnant like an appendix. BD2412 T 01:06, 5 March 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 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 speedied already. Syrthiss 14:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Scranchuse 13:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Is there any such thing as an unincorporated town? Delete unless proven otherwise. CalJW 15:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied already. Syrthiss 14:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's empty and there already is a Category:United States Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare.—Markles 11:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I just speedy this under C1: Empty or C2: Renamed? Vegaswikian 18:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you asking me? If so, then yeah, speedy-delete it.—Markles 18:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 14:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are three categories here which do not match those for other countries:

• Category:Communications companies of Canada Rename Category:Telecommunications companies of Canada
• Category:Canadian telecommunications companies Rename /merge into above after it has been renamed Category:Telecommunications companies of Canada
• Category:Communications companies of the United States Rename Category:Telecommunications companies of the United States

Other categories exist for any that aren't telecommunications companies, eg media or distribution, but at a glance they are almost all involved in telecommunications, at least as one of their activities. It will be better to make it clear and consistent that these categories are about telecommunications, rather than having people add trucking companies and the like. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Honbicot 15:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 07:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like Category:Homosexual Wikipedians in which the decision was "delete", these categories haveno members other than subcategories that can also be found below Category:LGBT Wikipedians. It is not needed and redundant. Nobody that I have ever met has identified themselves as being "Monosexual" or "Bi-curious", and neither has any Wikipedians. I would not object to recreating if someone feels the need to self-identify in either way. -- Samuel Wantman 10:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This whole system is absurd. CalJW 15:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not MySpace. --MarkSweep (call me collect)
• Delete I agree with MarkSweep's point Wikipedia is not MySpace. (Hypernick1980 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

03:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Good mantra: WP is not MySpace. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wikipedia is not a dating agency. ;) --MacRusgail 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - MarkSweep, I think you've really hit on something there. WP is definitely not MySpace.--Esprit15d 18:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 06:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd overcategorisation. No description. Contains Marie Antoinette! Such cats should be speedable. Pavel Vozenilek 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking deeper, it is subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by actor, currently with 4 subcategories (Richardson one of them). This uber-category should be perhaps discussed here as well. Pavel Vozenilek 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as absurd ::Supergolden:: 13:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all four subcategories and ubercategory. This is a terrible idea. It can only lead to Albert Einstein gaining the tag Category:Yahoo Serious-portrayed characters.--Mike Selinker 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename --Latinus 12:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC) The distinction between evaluation and assessment is controversial. Using both terms in the category name allows for grouping related subcategories under this high-level education category with a minimum of hair splitting. Rfrisbie^talk 05:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Nesbit 16:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 06:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe anyone would think that this would be a good idea. It only has one subcatagory cat:People with type AB blood which should also be deleted, and that catagory only has two articles in it. JeffW 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 05:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and BJAODN. -choster 06:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete But this probably exists in the Japanese Wikipedia, as blood type is taken seriously in Japan. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it important there for any reason besides Japan blood type theory of personality? ×Meegs 09:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Holy cow, no. Delete.---Mike Selinker 07:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto ^talk 06:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for beings for a non-notable Ruin Mist fantasy series by the astro-turfing Robert Stanek. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruin Mist and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Stanek. Calton | Talk 02:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Drat, I missed this one... yeah, kill it dead. Shimgray | talk | 23:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. — TexasAndroid 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a category of pages that have been vandalized only draws attention to them. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most Wikipedia pages have been vandalized. --Khoikhoi 01:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since this category could also be called Category:Every article on the Wikipedia, delete please. — Scm83x ^talk 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Postdlf 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 05:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete for now. Syrthiss 14:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ugly phrase. The emigration and (hopefully to be renamed) immigration categories are in all the necessary subcategories. It is better to keep them separate as it emphasises that two different sets of people are involved. Delete ReeseM 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unneccesary ::Supergolden:: 13:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As usual. CalJW 15:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete where are they moving scotland to? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until someone comes up with a more elegant name. Admittedly the name is poor (this was the first one of its type created and I had no model to follow), but the category is necessary. Someone is going to have to come up with a good naming convention for these categories.--Mais oui! 21:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. Syrthiss 14:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC) "Immigration to Scotland" is clearer. There is no New Scots article. ReeseM 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename New phrase to me. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Scottish immigration, in line with Category:Scottish emigration ::Supergolden:: 13:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "New Scots" is a phrase applied to individuals, whereas, "Immigration to Scotland" deals with the movement of people en masse, something very different. --MacRusgail 14:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Then is doesn't belong in the migration categories, so Mais Oui got most of it wrong as usual. CalJW 15:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Scottish immigration. AllanHainey 15:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Scottish immigration. "New Scots" is a very common term in Scotland (Google: 36,100 hits), but it is perhaps not the most useful naming convention when these categories are created for other countries. I tend to agree with MacRusgail that cat:New Scots is properly a subcategory of the Immigration category, but at the moment it is so small that the subcat is not really necessary.Perhaps we can recreate it when it is necessary?--Mais oui! 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Immigration to Scotland. Unlike the emigrants these folks aren's Scottish until they get there, so it isn't "Scottish immigration" it is immigration by anyone but Scottish people. Golfcam 04:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closing admin - Clear consensus to rename, but split on Immigration to Scotland and Scottish immigration. I realize that Scottish immigration will balance Scottish emigration, but Golfcam's argument seems more germane: Scottish immigration has the question 'immigration to where?', whereas Immigration to Scotland clearly defines the category. --Syrthiss 14:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 14:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category isn't named in English and it only has one subcategory. Create a separate Category:Immigration to Wales if it becomes necessary, but please merge this grammatical abortion into Category:Welsh emigration. ReeseM 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unneccesary, overlaps with Category:Welsh emigration ::Supergolden:: 13:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. CalJW 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as supercat for both immigration and emigration, until someone comes up with a more elegant name.--Mais oui! 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Golfcam 04:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. —akghetto ^talk 07:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm renominating these as I think the closing admin made a bad call. There were three keep votes, all in the early stages. One was made on the basis that this sort of thing is done for Western countries, which isn't true; one was made on the basis that the articles shouldn't be deleted, which is a misunderstanding of what deleting a category means; and two out of three were happy to delete all the categories except the main one. No one voted keep after the misunderstandings were pointed out. In my opinion that just shows how this process doesn't work well if people don't revisit the discussion.

• Category:Competitors at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games
• Category:Athletes at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games
• Category:Bodybuilders at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games
• Category:Table tennis players at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games
• Category:Bowling players at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games
• Category:Badminton players at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games
• Delete all ReeseM 00:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep main category, delete others. TheGrappler 06:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Overcategorisation. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Like I said last time, if this becomes policy some athletes could end up with huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
  

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge blocks of categories at the bottom of their pages, which would not be a good thing. Golfcam 22:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be corrected to match the categories for other countries. ReeseM 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC). Rename ReeseM 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Carina22 11:37, 24 February 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.