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 back to Category:Animal behaviour --Kbdank71 15:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor systematically moved everything out of the existing Category:Animal behaviour presumably because of a dislike of British spelling. I didn't like the lack of discussion and don't think you should disturb the acceptable unnecessarily ('-iou-' is acceptable). Rather than repeatedly reverting (I did start) I place it here. Marskell 22:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and move them back. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Moving the listing w/o discussion was bad behavior, but now that it's there we might as well keep the correct spelling :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move them back. Wikipedia policy is to leave national varieties of English, in international articles, alone: the first user establishes the pattern. Otherwise it ends up with wars (e.g. people battle over color vs. colour in articles, caring more about spelling than whether they break links). Notinasnaid 09:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as long as we have the policy to keep everything in the spelling that happened to be used when the article (or cat) was first created (and if you don't like that policy, please make a better suggestion). Radiant_>|< 10:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move the articles back to category:Animal behaviour. CalJW 14:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move back, let's try and respect each other. Hiding talk 14:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move back, but retain a {{categoryredirect}} for the other spelling. -Splash^talk 17:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Change it to "Ethology" and defuse the whole issue

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 15:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for merging into Category:Members of the Cabinet of Canada by User:The Tom on Nov 5 but not listed here. --Kbdank71 20:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This was listed on November 6 with a no consensus result. Hiding talk 14:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged by User:Joshbaumgartner on Nov 17 to be upmerged into Category:Ships of Argentina. --Kbdank71 20:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. What about 'Naval Ships of Country'? Is it understood with just Ships? Gadster 03:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - assuming that Argentina has had icebreakers. Viable subcat. Grutness...wha? 03:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the natural home of an article about an Argentinian icebreaker. Carina22 06:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP useful. 132.205.45.110 19:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Ships of Argentina; only one article and unlikely to see more soon. Joshbaumgartner 20:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged by User:Joshbaumgartner on Nov 17 to be upmerged into Category:Ships of Argentina. --Kbdank71 20:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - assuming that Argentina has had aircraft carriers. Viable subcat. Grutness...wha? 03:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A useful category for people interested in aircraft carriers I presume. Carina22 06:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP useful. 132.205.45.110 19:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep more than one article. Joshbaumgartner 20:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for deletion by User:AlexPU on Nov 13 after creating Category:Ships of Ukraine and moving all articles there. --Kbdank71 20:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - use new category at more appropriate country name. Grutness...wha? 03:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Incorrect country name. Carina22 06:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Joshbaumgartner 16:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for deletion by creator, User:Andries on Nov 20, but not listed here. --Kbdank71 20:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded category with no current members. Only had one member to begin with (myself), and Wikipedia is better served by "Wikipedian LiveJournalers" category instead. Azathar 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only one entry, still not released after years. Article on deCosta himself was deleted previously for non-notability.--DooMDrat 14:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify. Notability is a POV thing; the article should never have been deleted. Who screwed up?12.73.195.124 02:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Put any content in Richard deCosta. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needless intermediate step.

• Merge into Category:cantons of Ecuador. CalJW 06:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per CalJW. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following should be renamed to the standard "in" form for man made objects in line with the parent Category:Museums in Canada. There is no valid reason for Canada to be different:

• Category:Ontario museums --> Category:Museums in Ontario
• Category:Ottawa museums --> Category:Museums in Ottawa
• Category:Alberta museums --> Category:Museums in Alberta
• Category:British Columbia museums --> Category:Museums in British Columbia
• Category:Montreal museums --> Category:Museums in Montreal
• Category:Quebec museums --> Category:Museums in Quebec

• Rename all CalJW 05:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all "Nouns in place" is just plain ugly. "Place-adjective nouns" is mellifluous. Except rename to Category:Canadian museums. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as per nom. - Darwinek 10:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for consistency. Bhoeble 12:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --Thelb⁴ 16:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom The Tom 21:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as per Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters STopCat 22:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom Grutness...wha? 03:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Should be a speedy. Carina22 06:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, this should be a speedy. Radiant_>|< 10:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. as per nom. -Mayumashu 14:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as per Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters --Jondel 04:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all No brainer. Osomec 14:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Martin 12:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "in" form in standard for man made objects. It is used for the parent Category:Skyscrapers in Canada and all of the other subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures in Toronto except those for universities.

• Rename CalJW 05:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "in" must die. :-) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Darwinek 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's dislike of the word "in" must make writing English prose a challenge, but it would be worse if she felt that way about "the" or "and" I suppose. Bhoeble 12:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom The Tom 21:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep STopCat 22:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Grutness...wha? 03:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename This is the standard. Should be a speedy. Carina22 06:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, this should be a speedy. Radiant_>|< 10:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, this should be a speedy. Osomec 14:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't match "computer and video games" category precedent. The main article is Baldur's Gate series, so rename to Category:Baldur's Gate series. -Sean Curtin 02:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. -- Mkill 00:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—there is currently no naming consistency in the subcategories of Category:Computer and video game franchises. Postdlf 01:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category CG janitor 07:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC) I forgot to sign.[reply]

• Merge CalJW 05:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC) (not my nomination, nominator did not sign).[reply]
• Delete Well, there are no people on it and plenty of people under German-Americans, there isn't even a need to merge.Vulturell 20:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete STopCat 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename, I'd say a missing hyphen counts as a typo. Radiant_>|< 10:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why is the hyphen needed? — Instantnood 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need an article for one game only, when it could cover the entire series? Jonny2x4 01:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Kill (almost all) fictional categories. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator. Bhoeble 12:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete' STopCat 22:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nominated. Carina22 16:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom. TexasAndroid 21:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom. Osomec 14:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A category containing four articles about characters from an obscure Capcom game that could easily be merge into the game's main article itself. Completely unneeded in that case Jonny2x4 01:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Kill (almost all) fictional categories. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator. Bhoeble 12:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match majority of articles in Category:Wars by country. (Note:Somebody inserted the tag a while ago, but there seems to be no entry here, so I did it. Mkill 00:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose An usually high proportion of Japanese wars were internal. Bhoeble 12:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I thought this was already covered by the earlier umbrella proposal. Kirill Lokshin 13:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Bhoeble, disunified Japan isn't exactly "Japan" 132.205.45.110 19:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This WAS already covered by an earlier umbrella proposal. See [1] --Kbdank71 20:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, this should be a speedy per the earlier umbrella. I don't see the relevance of Bhoeble's comment, internal wars of Japan are still wars of Japan. Radiant_>|< 10:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This illustrates that the policy is wrong. There are many wars which are relevant to country categories but which were not fought by the unified modern state. CalJW 14:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Official policy for wars is 'Wars of Foo' format. See 'Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country"' for official policy. I fail to see why Japanese wars are a unique case warranting breaking policy. Joshbaumgartner 16:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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