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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the spelling mistake, I don't think this category has any potential for population CDN99 23:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed. In any event, the category creator doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the categorization system, describing this category as a list. Soltak | Talk 23:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MSJapan 03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:11, 3 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article, no serious chance of expansion. Upmerge into parent cat. Radiant_>|< 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 22:12, 3 January 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 --Kbdank71 16:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing name; it is unclear whether this relates to items for Admins, or items related to general WikiProcess. Also, seems redundant with Category:Wikipedia maintenance and/or Category:Wikipedia administration. Wouldn't mind deletion, but if kept rename to something clearer. Radiant_>|< 21:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Existing categories do this well enough already. [[Sam Korn]] 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mirror Vax 03:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be just another permutation of the meaning of other, extant, adequate categorization. -Splash^talk 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: i think this is meant as a top level category for wikipedians as opposed to the encyclopaedi Category:Wikipedia. what would be the top level category for wikipedians? -- Zondor 00:28, 10 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with existing and more appropriate categorization of WikiPages. Made as a counterpart for "Wikipedia voting forums" to create a false dichotomy. Also, these aren't forums. Radiant_>|< 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. [[Sam Korn]] 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename. I'm actually neutral on the actual category, but for that name: WP:NOT a discussion forum. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just made a template for this purpose, so this isn't necessary, nor is it helpful. Ashibaka tock 01:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (Why are they not fora? They are, I think.) -Splash^talk 16:12, 8 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one article in the category, and this is not likely to change in the near future, perhaps make a Non-Italian Popes category, as suggested further down under Polish Popes. -- Cooksey 20:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - agree with Non-Italian Popes --DocJohnny 20:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and same with Polish Popes -- a Non-Italian Popes Category makes more sense and would be better organized -- perhaps with the country/area of origin next to the popes name. SVera1NY 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There already is a Non-Italian popes category. // paroxysm (n) 21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. And merge to Category:Non-Italian popes. As an aside, should "popes" be capitalized? Soltak | Talk 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, speaking, "popes" isn't capitalised. But if you're talking about "the Pope" or a particular one by name (e.g., Pope John XXIII), then you'd capitalise. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NeoJustin 23:31, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on how Category:Non-Italian popes is set up]]. Vegaswikian 03:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge with non-Italian Popes. Benami 11:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per arguments in the other category. CalJW 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments regarding Category:Polish popes. siafu 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with non-Italian popes.--ThreeAnswers 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's Dutch, not "non-Italian". Category:Non-Italian popes is not a subcategory of Category:Netherlands. Sumahoy 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Ze miguel 14:29, 10 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Celebrities with dimples a bit farther down and delete. Soltak | Talk 18:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• a reason to keep because it groups people by how they look. There are categories for Bearded women, Albinos, People without hands, among others, so why not a category for people with dimples? There are people born with dimples, you know. Dimples are classified as a human congenital appearance, present since birth. There is a long list of people with dimples on the Dimple page. Most articles on Wikipedia that contain long lists of people get merged into categories. --User:Sevensouls 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Soltak. What, we're going to list everybody with dimples, as opposed to famous people with dimples? <unsigned comment by User:Benami, 18:37, 2 January 2006>
  • Quite right. In it's own way, this is even less intelligent than the previous Category:Celebrities with dimples. Not only does Cary Grant fall into this new category, so does my brother-in-law. I'm sure he'll be excited when I tell him. Soltak | Talk 19:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - they're not just famous people or random people with dimples. This category is for people who are already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about them. --User:Sevensouls 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Where, exactly, did you specify that? Category:People with dimples means exactly that, any person with dimples. Perhaps what you're looking for is Category:People who already have had their notability established by being written about elsewhere in Wikipedia that also happen to have dimples. In any event, this whole lot of dimples nonsense represents nothing more than inane over-categorization. Soltak | Talk 19:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Whilst this category is obviously silly, Soltak's comments are misplaced and Scary Carie is correct with regard to the formation of the category name. By definition a Wikipedia cat can only contain people who already have articles on Wikipedia. Therefore cat names in forms such as "People with X", "People from Y", "Fooian people" are quite correctly named. If the possession of dimples were encyclopedic, then this cat would be correctly named. By contrast most cats containing the formula "Famous people with X" or "Celebrities with Y" are incorrectly named as people on WP already have fame (or at least notability!) Valiantis 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed the list of celebrities with dimples on the Dimple page was getting long and it might be better to put them in a category instead of listing them on the page Sevensouls 19:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ever consider it might be better to just delete it altogether? Soltak | Talk 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pointless overcat. Radiant_>|< 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Silly. Lots of people have dimples. Sevensouls 14:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If you're changing your vote (I'm glad you are) you should strike out your first vote. Soltak | Talk 16:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense. --Pjacobi 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial overcategorization. siafu 22:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How deep does it have to be? Honbicot 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. utcursch | talk 11:46, 6 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the only article in this category is Toon Disney, which is also part of the Category:Disney Channel, and isn't an affiliate in the traditional sense of the word, anyway. Disney, to my knowledge, does not maintain regular network affiliations, so I don't think there's really much use or need for this category. – Seancdaug 17:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; unnecessary and not technically accurate anyway. *Dan T.* 19:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. --Cooksey 20:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NeoJustin 23:36, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:28, 3 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and very, very few places are actually votes. To list them as places for voting is inaccurate and misleading, as well as encouraging vote counting as opposed to consensus-building. [[Sam Korn]] 16:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Go for it! (talk · contribs) has also created Category:Wikipedia decision forums, as a "politically correct" alternative to this template. Personally I'm not disposed any more kindly towards it than I was towards the original. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, Lord! It burns! It burns us so badly! Kill it, now! And quickly! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• MexCabal burning, delete -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 16:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Everybody treats them that way anyway, no matter how many policy pages get created saying that they're not really "votes". (I'm not sure which way to vote... er, I mean "express my opinion"... on this.) *Dan T.* 16:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worl, changing this to bullet points (when I and drini specifically weren't using them) doesn't help matters :-). The "voting forums" are not voting forums, and the perception that they are is harmful to the good operation of the encyclopaedia. Such a perception should be hunted down and destroyed, not boosted by silly categories. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP -- How are newbies going to find these forums if we can't use plain english to describe them? This category lists places Wikipedians cast their ballots, say "yeah" or "nay", decide for or against, say "keep" or "delete", "support" or "oppose"... in other words: VOTE. Heck even this discussion right now is a voting session. And now you're saying we can't describe it as voting, even though that's exactly what the activity is? That's just plain censorship, and it's idiotic. Perhaps the votes don't get interpretted nor counted in the same way they do in a democracy, but they're still votes. Voting is part of Wikipedian culture, and is done in a very Wikipedian way, and rather than labeling the word as taboo, we should simply put it in context, because you aren't going to stop users from speaking their native language just because it offends you. If they see something that looks like voting and feels like voting, they're going to call it voting. The categories are meant to help users find what they are looking for. If a user is looking for the places where he can vote, either because he participated by following a link or he read about them, he will understand the category Wikipedia voting forums the instant he lays eyes on it. Please, let's focus on building categories to help users find what they are looking for, which in turn will help Wikipedia operate more smoothly, and let's put it all into context at the destinations. Thank you for your time. Go for it! 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has only one procedure that involves straight-out voting, and that's RfA. And even then, it's not a full democratic vote. Encouraging people to "vote" at places that aren't voting forums, and telling them to expect those forums to be treated as elections, is bloody stupid and should not occur. AfD, TfD, CfD, RfD, RfA, $INSERTNAMEHERE, et al. are not places where people who want to engage in democracy can go to do so — they all have specific purposes, and this sort of thing subverts that purpose. To Hell with your "censorship" bizzo. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even RfA is not really voting. The only thing that really is is arbitration committee votes. [[Sam Korn]] 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Calling something a voting forum is likely to give a newbie the impression that it is, well, a vote. When it isn't. The category doesn't put anything in context, other than that we vote in some forums: a context they should not be given. Established WPians know that, and newbies will be mislead by it. It serves no purpose that is not already collected together in the various other categories that most such pages are in, and so should be removed. -Splash^talk 17:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Drop it, Wikipedia is not a democracy. - FrancisTyers 18:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, this isn't a Wikidemocracy. Soltak | Talk 19:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Splash has it right I think, someone unfamilar with Wikipedia will this and see vote and will carry that away...perception is reality and all that. Rx StrangeLove 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mirror Vax 07:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Splash. Wikipedia is not a democracy. siafu 22:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, preposterous. Should be speedy depopped. Next we'll have people trying to vote away foundation issues. (Oh, too late.) —Cryptic (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Burn Now per all above. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, people didn't spend ages turning "Votes for Deletion" into "Articles for Deletion" for no reason you know. the wub "?!" 23:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: In accord with "the Wiki is not a democracy" mantra; that said, renaming is a viable alternative. Ombudsman 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. helohe (talk) 02:15, 8 January 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 --Kbdank71 14:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to give a reason? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE () 16:25, Jan. 2, 2006

• Strong delete. I've been monitoring the actions of User:Flarn2005 for some time now, and his actions have - in my opinion, of course - been nothing but disruption and censorship. A check of his blog, to which he links on his userpage, reveals that he is young - perhaps even a preteen - and attempts to reason with him, likely because of his extremely young age, have been met with difficulty. While I don't think that being young should exclude one from participating in wikipedia, I do think that his history counts against him. jglc | t | c 16:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hopelessly POV. Joyous | Talk 16:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - we've gone through this debate many times. Rhobite 16:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete As per Joy Stovall. Haiduc 17:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what the f is the point of this - all it can do is serve as a quick navigation for naughty children. --Doc ^ask? 17:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since we're not in loco parentis. Benami 18:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No articles in category, and it would self defeat its purpose without ability to lock out minors from viewing. --Dorje Shedrub 19:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --DocJohnny 20:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Self defeating category. --Cooksey 20:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, we discuss this every month and WP:NOT censored. Radiant_>|< 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This debate should never be regarded as closed. Wikipedia was founded in a porn company office and most of the earlier users may have been permissive long haired types, but that doesn't mean it has to stay the same forever. CalJW 19:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you have a personal prejudice against "permissive long haired types" (which, as one can clear see from the photographs, does not include Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger), I suggest you take it somewhere more appropriate than categories for deletion. siafu 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not censored. This debate is, and has been, closed for a very long time. siafu 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete spam. Quaque (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 January 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 redirect --Kbdank71 15:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous category. DocJohnny 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --DocJohnny 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it possible to redirect Category:Cancer to Category:Oncology? -- Mikeblas 17:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cat redir. Radiant_>|< 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, though this one would need to be carefully patrolled. siafu 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Oncology is treatment of Cancer rather than Cancer itself. There are sub cats of Cancer which would not be appropriate as subcats of Oncology, for example Carcinogens. Also the name Cancer is far more well known than Oncology which is a very specific medical term, not generally well known in the UK. --Pfafrich 12:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oncology is the study of cancer and its treatment. Oncology and oncological research delves routinely into the study of carcinogens. The only article or category under Category:Cancer which may not fit well under Category:Oncology would be Sofia's Hair 4 Health. --DocJohnny 22:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - not according to its def on cat page: Oncology is the field of medicine that deals with the surgical or non-surgical therapy of cancer. def on Oncology page

Oncology is the medical subspecialty dealing with the study and treatment of cancer. Im not agaist a merge, but it should be the other way round in favor of the wider more common term. --Pfafrich 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - Again I am not opposed to a reverse merge, but there are more articles under Oncology. The existence of both is superfluous. --DocJohnny 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. -- Ze miguel 14:29, 10 January 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 --Kbdank71 14:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopeadic, personal attacks magnet. Ze miguel 13:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no purpose --DocJohnny 16:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Benami 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is not a subject, it is an adjective. --Dorje Shedrub 19:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NeoJustin 23:32, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:42, 3 January 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 to Category:Visitor attractions in Hyderabad --Kbdank71 14:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization, comma at the end, consistency Ze miguel 13:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There's only one article there. --Thorri 14:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above --DocJohnny 16:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The proposed name is not consistent. "Landmarks" means different things in different parts of the world and should be avoided for non-U.S. categories (where we are stuck with it at the cost of much damage to the buildings and structures categories). Rename Category:Visitor attractions in Hyderabad in line with most categories in Category:Visitor attractions by city. CalJW 18:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per CalJW. It also appears that the creator put several category members right into the cat description. siafu 22:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per CalJW. Honbicot 21:40, 4 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain as to the purpose of the category, are there amateur CAM treatments?. DocJohnny 11:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --DocJohnny 11:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge same reasoning as above --CDN99 22:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. No argument. siafu 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Cleates a nonexistent distincion. All CAM treatments are unprofessional, and CAM takes a degree of pride of not being professional at all. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Whether you consider all CAM treatments "unprofessional" depends on whether you use the narrower, older definition of profession (by which there are only a few professions-- medicine, law, divinity), or the more widely used modern usage that equates professional with "making a living by doing something that takes special knowledge or skill". I would tend to use the broader definition in the alt med context and hence disagree with JFW. However the boundaries of the two sets are very difficult to distinguish from each other and I can't think of much value in keeping them separate. alteripse 15:21, 9 January 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 category as nominated, no consensus on subcategories --Kbdank71 14:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The category should have a suffix of the United States
• Category:Delaware Routes --> Category:Delaware state highways
• Category:Florida State Roads --> Category:Florida state highways
• Category:Iowa State Highways --> Category:Iowa state highways
• Category:Numbered routes in Massachusetts --> Category:Massachusetts state highways
• Category:State Routes in New Jersey --> Category:New Jersey state highways
• Category:Rhode Island State Highways --> Category:Rhode Island state highways
• Category:State highways in Alaska --> Category:Alaska state highways
• Category:West Virginia State Highways --> Category:West Virginia state highways

Ze miguel 10:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Didn't we just CfD this the other way in favor of the proper names for the highway systems? Joshbaumgartner 18:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the main category, oppose everything else The capitalized versions are more specific. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:55, 6 January 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 --Kbdank71 14:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely redirect, no links, ALL CAPS. Mikeblas 07:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Curious: it looks like this was deleted with no discussion or announcement here. -- Mikeblas 17:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, silly name. Radiant_>|< 21:07, 2 January 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 --Kbdank71 14:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

because there is only one item in it, and it is a Talk page to another article MSJapan 06:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: The link has now been fixed, and there are now no items in the category at all. MSJapan 03:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, goes nowhere; if it should exist, a section would surely suffice. Grye 06:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the masons start a publishing spree, this is pointless --DocJohnny 16:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NeoJustin 23:33, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:49, 3 January 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 --Kbdank71 14:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unnecessary. Only one person fits into this category, and isn't likely to change in the near futures. SVera1NY 03:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Benami 04:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Category:Dutch popes contains only person as well, in addition to a main article on dutch popes, which says "Adrian VI was the only dutch pope." // paroxysm (n) 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an argument for the elimination of the Dutch pope category, not for the retention of the Polish one. Why not merge both of them into a Non-Italian Popes category? Benami 04:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I wasn't arguing to keep it, I was just pointing out another. // paroxysm (n) 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep so that all Popes can be accurately classified. Carina22 09:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agreed. --Thorri 14:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No point to a category with one entry. A "Non-Italian Popes" category would be fine. --DocJohnny 16:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above --Doc ^ask? 16:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Single entry categories are unnecessary. I would support Category:Non-Italian Popes. Soltak | Talk 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have one: Category:Non-Italian popes. // paroxysm (n) 21:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We can recreate the category with the election of the next Polish pope. Homey 18:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category for single entry not needed. --Dorje Shedrub 19:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Non-Italian Popes category. --Cooksey 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, but a cat redir wouldn't hurt for this one. Radiant_>|< 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NeoJustin 23:33, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on how Category:Non-Italian popes is set up]]. Vegaswikian 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thorough categorisation is highly desirable. Please look at it from both angles. It is valuable to single out the Polish Pope from the other members of the Polish prelates category or whatever the relevant parent within the Polish menu is called. CalJW 18:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorization; category only has one member. siafu 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a non-Italian popes category.--ThreeAnswers 09:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He was Polish, not "non-Italian". Category:Non-Italian popes is not a subcategory of Category:Poland. Sumahoy 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Absolutely necessary to maintain categorization scheme that feeds into Category:Polish people and Category:Non-Italian popes. This structure is common for all major "People" categories, and will by necessity create single-entry categories.--Mike Selinker 07:18, 6 January 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 keep --Kbdank71 14:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This contains only one item, Pille (one of the mascots for the 2006 World Cup - a talking football), and I can't think of any other "fictional balls" that could be added AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 03:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can! // paroxysm (n) 04:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose you can. :-) Keep, since it's no longer a single item category. Benami 04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fair enough then! I've been well-and-truly shown... AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cinderella was involved with a fictional ball, as was that one AC/DC song. Seriously, my point is that this category, like so many others, needs some descriptive text. -- Mikeblas 17:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- multiple entries. --Dorje Shedrub 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now has multiple entries. --Cooksey 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While it may have multiple items, it is somewhat nonsensical, and really not useful at all. I don't think we should promote the creation of categories that serve no real purpose, but it pokes fun at what WP is really about, which is serious and useful information. MSJapan 03:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Cabal has spoken! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sensibly populated. siafu 22:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who would ever search for this?--ThreeAnswers 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On first glance I would have given this nothing more than a "what the hell?" and slapped a delete on it. However, since there are articles about what can really only be described as fictional balls, there might as well be a category for them to populate. Soltak | Talk 00:43, 6 January 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 --Kbdank71 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a sub-category of Category:LGBT organizations and was added apparently for the NAMBLA entry only so that it would not be listed on the LGBT org page. Pedastry accompanies more than just homosexuality, could be bi or straight also, so it's placement is misleading. It theoretically could be a valuable category if there was more than just one entry. Should be deleted. -- Jbamb 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete category empty. --Dorje Shedrub 20:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we do not need a category for a single article. Also see Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association. // paroxysm (n) 02:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An accurate category. Please read the pederasty article. According to Wikipeia editors, it is a different topic from pedophilia. -Will Beback 03:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If that is so, why did you put it in Category:Pedophile organizations? I'm afraid I don't see the crux of your argument at all. // paroxysm (n) 03:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, recategorized to Category:Pederasty and Category:organizations. -Will Beback 03:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It was put into organizations for people who tried to get NAMBLA unlisted as an LGBT organization. It appears it will only every have one entry in this category. One-item categories are not categories. -- Jbamb 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Jbamb. I also am not aware of any organizations promoting pederasty per se. Haiduc 04:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. It doesn't belong in the pederasty cat, inasmuch that NAMBLA does not seem to stand strictly for the legalization of sex between "between adolescents and adult men," as per the pederasty article, but rather favor the the elimination of all age of consent laws. There may be pederasts in NAMBLA, but there are undoubtedly pedophile members, too. Benami 04:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Benami Carina22 09:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete empty category --DocJohnny 16:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Soltak | Talk 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not aware of any articles that would fit within this category. Natgoo 20:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:53, 3 January 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.