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 TexasAndroid 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe prior discussions concluded that we shouldn't categorise films by actor. Extraordinary Machine 23:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - choster 13:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 14:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:29, 11 April 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 TexasAndroid 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The battleship class has been changed to Tegetthoff. The original items of this category were migrated into newly created Category:Tegetthoff class battleships. Sandius 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although I must say that it would have been better to leave things where they were and propose this as a rename so we could have a chance to do the cfd without the results already being dictated. Josh 03:25, 18 April 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. the wub "?!" 22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:Washington state highways. Got mired in some silly process arguments so has to come here again. In the U.S. state of Washington, a state highway is a road maintained by the state. This includes Interstates and U.S. Routes. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, after coming across this while clearing out SD candidates. (several times.) State highway states that interstates, US routes, and state highways are distinct things. These terms may be used differently in local areas- eg in Washington- but notice that Category:Washington state highways contains both subcats as well as state routes. If interstates and US numbered highways deserve their own cats, so do state routes; i can see little reason to categorize them under what is also an umbrella cat. IMO Category:Washington highways should remain as an umbrella, with the three cats for state routes, interstates etc underneath. While state highways may be used in washington to refer to any state maintained road, they aren't therefore equivelant to interstates and US routes when setting up categories on wikipedia. see my talk for more discussion with SPUI and Rschen7754. (And again, why isn't this being sorted out at WikiProject Highways, WikiProject Washington State Highways, or WikiProject U.S. Roads?????) --He:ah? 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reasoning is incorrect. In Washington, Interstates and U.S. Routes are state highways. They are also State Routes, so splitting it like that doesn't work. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Heah. BoojiBoy
• Delete and make Interstates and US Highways as subcategories of Washington state highways.Polaron 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your reasoning? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I;ve stated it over and over. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only reason you've stated is that you think it should be deleted but others might want it kept. Closing admin: please treat Rschen7754's vote as a delete. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • People are absolutely NOT required to give their reasons for voting the way they do; the closing admin can take whatever comments and opinions into consideration that they would like. Rschen7754 clearly said "keep". Don't be silly, SPUI, this is getting kind of irritating . . . --He:ah? 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia is not a democracy, this is not a vote. If you don't provide a reason it seems entirely appropriate to me for the closing admin to discount the vote. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can;'t do that! It should be kept because it presents the proper hierarchy for the system. Stop trying to get the category speedied. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • He's not trying to get it speedied, this is Categories for Deletion. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you look at the history of the category, he is. Very clearly. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You still can't take an obvious Keep vote and say "please treat Rschen7754's vote as a delete." BoojiBoy 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just one more reason why SPUI is up for RFC, he's a dick. JohnnyBGood 19:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, weakly, as redundant—although my personal preference would be to move Category:Washington state highways in its current form to Category:Washington highways after the deletion, to mitigate any confusion. (Or merge, or reverse merge, or whatever; frankly the terminology is all kind of confusing.) --phh 01:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, "highways" can refer to many things not covered by "state highways" as not all highways are nessecarily numbered and state owned. JohnnyBGood 18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Heah. As the terminology is confusing and different for different areas and circumstances, it's best to maintain the most general form possible. siafu 19:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SPUI. The keep voters have failed to explain why this should be kept, other than that they don't like SPUI. Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a redundant category. There are state highways maintained by the state of Washington, and there are federal highways that pass through Washington. Surely we don't need a category for the latter. — Apr. 12, '06 [12:39] <freakofnur_xture|>
• Keep regardless of what one state says about what is and isn't an X Y or Z, a consistent nomenclature and binning of X Y and Z across all states, that fits what a person (not familiar with a particular state's idiosyncratic nomenclature) would reasonably expect is what we should strive for, and keeping this category seems a step in the right direction. Hopefully that explains WHY it should be kept. For the record, not that you asked me personally, I like SPUI, a lot. I just don't like some of his actions here... Suggesting that people are voting keep because they don't like SPUI seems not quite correct to me, YMMV of course. ++Lar: t/c 12:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not because it's redundant (even though it may be), but because it would contain only three subcategories and nothing else. Suggestion: to address the objection of interstates and US highways being subcategories of state highways, move Category:Interstate Highways in Washington and Category:U.S. Highways in Washington to be subcategories of Category:Transportation in Washington. Usgnus 19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Heah. Gene Nygaard 03:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. atanamir 06:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 06:31, 16 April 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 the wub "?!" 22:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. This category should simply be changed to matched the main article, Queen's University of Belfast.--67.70.161.113 20:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Clearer as to what is meant. Djegan 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 14:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 19:34, 11 April 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 TexasAndroid 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for Paragons of virtue; needs objective inclusion criteria -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pure personal opinion. Sumahoy 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Bhoeble 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a POV'ed subset of Category:People. siafu 19:36, 11 April 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 TexasAndroid 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Cleveland Indians (NFL) players ProveIt ^(talk) 18:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The league abbreviation is better as a parenthetical than the sport.--Mike Selinker 00:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a Cleveland Indians (NFL) article but no Cleveland Indians (football) article. Usgnus 19:47, 12 April 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 therefore keep. the wub "?!" 22:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Previous rename debate[reply]

• Rename.This category should be changed to matched the main article, Queen's University. The use of the ", Canada" qualifier is unnecessary and awkward form. 67.70.161.113 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or rename differently. There is already at least one other Queen's University in Belfast. --Mal 01:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other school is officially called the Queen's University of Belfast, always with the regional qualifier. The Canadian school has no such qualifier. Putting in a regional qualifier after a comma has the misleading effect of suggesting there is more than one campus, as in University of California, Berkeley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.161.113 (talk • contribs)

That does not prevent possible confusion over the name: Queen's University applies to both the Canadian university and to the British university. Therefore a regional qualifer is obviously needed. This renaming is unacceptable as it could lead to ambiguity. --Mal 07:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. BoojiBoy 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. also do up Category:Queen's University, Canada and Category:Queen's University, Canada faculty at some point Mayumashu 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per article title. siafu 19:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Queen's University is a common enough usage for the Belfast university. Usgnus 20:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Ardenn 01:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mal and Usgnus. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mal et al. theKeith 12:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename at the very least this shold not be , Canada but rather Queen's University (Canada) ... 132.205.44.134 00:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So would you support the renaming of the cat to Queen's University (Canada) alumni then perhaps? --Mal 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to proper name to match main article.--Greenmind 04:12, 14 April 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. the wub "?!" 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations should be avoided unless the full name is ridiculously long or less clear than the abbreviation. CalJW 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename [as nom.] CalJW 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't rename - The names are to long the acronyms would be better and mean the same thing. SirIsaacBrock 22:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Wikipedia is for the public, not for specialists who know what obscure acronyms mean. Sumahoy 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom and Sumahoy. David Kernow 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as above. Thryduulf 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 14:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 19:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom and Sumahoy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:28, 14 April 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. the wub "?!" 22:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the word "accounting" is a commonly used verb it sounds odd as the name of the subject area category. The main article is Accountancy. CalJW 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename [as nom.] CalJW 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment - some people say TomAto and some people say Tomato ! No difference SirIsaacBrock 22:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I suppose I make a distinction between the activity "accounting" and the profession/methodology/study "accountancy". David Kernow 02:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match the main article. Thryduulf 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 14:18, 11 April 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 with Category:Accountancy. the wub "?!" 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Miscellaneous" categories are just a bad idea. Articles should be put in more accurate categories where possible, but where that is not yet or will never be appropriate they should be left in the general category. CalJW 17:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge [as nom] with category:Accounting (or with Category:Accountancy if the renaming proposed above goes through.) CalJW 17:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment - I am flexible on this so if there is a consensus my vote is merge. SirIsaacBrock 22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Sumahoy 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom to Category:Accounting. -choster 01:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 02:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per CalJW. Thryduulf 13:28, 11 April 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. the wub "?!" 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only national media category name out of 110 which included the word "mass". The everyday meaning of media is clear and requires no qualifier. Rename CalJW 17:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 23:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 14:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:29, 14 April 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. the wub "?!" 22:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think it is inherently POV -- particularly since the creator also made it a subcategory of Category:People noted for being in rare medical or psychological categories. But what caught my attention is the inclusion of Cao Pi in this category, which shows that this category would be POV -- whether Cao Pi was "self-declared" or was legitimately given his throne by Emperor Xian of Han is a matter of perspective. (Similar problems exist with the other two current Chinese occupants of the category, Sima Lun and Wang Shichong.) I don't think the category can be NPOV, and therefore should be deleted. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. Could you point me to a reliable source that describes such a controversy? I can't find any. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of support and ambiguity have forced me to change my vote. As creator of this category, I request deletion. Keep. The category accurately describes the self-declaration of Emperor by historical figures. If a conflict about a certain figure arises, it should be discussed on the appropriate talk page, rather than deleting an entire category. The member category may or may not be appropriate; I added it to match Category:Self-declared messiahs. It may also be necessary to add a statement about restricting this category to certain individuals, such as usurpers. —Viriditas | Talk 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hard to see how there could be any non-controversial entries. Sumahoy 23:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the member category which indeed, was controversial. I don't see any problem, now. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still POV, however, and removing the member category does not help that all that much. --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Anyone can self declare themselves an emperor. JohnnyBGood 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't follow you. —Viriditas | Talk 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I would say that it's doomed to being misinformed rather than purely POV. The nature of historical events often does not allow for self-declaration to be clearly established. That aside, however, the more important problem is that these entries do not have much in common; certainly, the founders of each of the Chinese dynasties are self-declared, as are the founders of various empires (e.g., Napoleon). In all these many cases, the term "empire" and "emperor" do not necessarily mean the same thing, and as mentioned the term "self-declared" is itself unclear. siafu 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the term is unclear, and as a result, I am changing my vote to delete. —Viriditas | Talk 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and siafu CalJW 08:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as previous. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There were people, e.g. coup leaders, crowning themselves as kings or emperors when the coup is close to be successful. Keep and rename as category:self-declared emperors and kings. — Instantnood 12:25, 15 April 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 deleted. - TexasAndroid 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to Category:Ramsar sites in Pakistan Siddiqui ^Siddiqui 15:45, 10 April 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 to Category:The West Wing (TV series). the wub "?!" 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to Category:The West Wing (TV series) ProveIt ^(talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• REVERSE MERGE The West Wing (TV series) is clearer. 132.205.45.110 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge - TexasAndroid 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; For a reverse merge, The West Wing (TV series) should also be renamed. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:The West Wing into Category:The West Wing (TV series). Thryduulf 13:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Thryduulf. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 14 April 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 both Category:Rome (television) Characters and Category:Rome characters to Category:Rome (TV series) characters. the wub "?!" 22:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to Category:Rome characters ProveIt ^(talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• REVERSE MERGE there are other things called Rome with characters. 132.205.45.110 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge - TexasAndroid 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Rome (TV series) characters to match the article title. siafu 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Rome (TV series) characters as per siafu. This is the agreed naming convention for television series (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)). (In which case Category:Rome (television) also requires a rename). Valiantis 20:18, 11 April 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 TexasAndroid 20:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:People executed by guillotine during the French Revolution

blanked by User:David Kernow ProveIt ^(talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment perhaps People executed by the commission during the Red Terror of the French Revolution would be better? 132.205.45.110 19:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (or redirect). David Kernow 03:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:49, 11 April 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 TexasAndroid 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to Category:Professional wrestling venues ProveIt ^(talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Capitalization. siafu 19:50, 11 April 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 TexasAndroid 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by its creator ProveIt ^(talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• CategoryRedirect to Category:Inflorescence vegetables, or keep as a subcategory of Category:Inflorescence vegetables. 132.205.45.110 19:03, 10 April 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 deleted. - TexasAndroid 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to Category:Rosenborg B.K. players ProveIt ^(talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:34, 10 April 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 deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to Category:Railway stations in East Renfrewshire ProveIt ^(talk) 15:33, 10 April 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 deleted. - TexasAndroid 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by creator ProveIt ^(talk) 15:33, 10 April 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 TexasAndroid 20:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inexplicable ProveIt ^(talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:51, 11 April 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. the wub "?!" 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to clarify. For the same reasons that we just renamed the pre-Union English MPs and Scottish MPs categories. Mais oui! 13:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:21, 14 April 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. the wub "?!" 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization fix. Kirill Lokshin 01:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Moved from Speedy due to objection. - TexasAndroid 13:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• object; the small i is less commonly used, Wars of Independence is a stock phrase, and should be capitalized. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Individual wars are proper nouns but classes of war are not. CalJW 04:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Bhoeble 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per CalJW. Valiantis 14:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above. David Kernow 03:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Wikipedia standards. Usgnus 20:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & CalJW. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 14 April 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. the wub "?!" 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been created specifically for two people (its sole inhabitants at the moment), but the term "Canadian Briton" is a neologism (indeed, "Briton" is used only for the ancient inhabitants of the British Islaes and by newspapers who need to conserve space; it's not standard English for British people. It's not entirely clear what it means: Canadian-born British citizens? Canadians living in Britain? It at least needs renaming (though I don't know what to); my preference is for deletion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, sorry, I think you're wrong; "Briton" is very commonly used in the media to refer to citizens of (and, implicitly, I suppose, persons with indefinite leave to remain in) the United Kingdom. On that basis, I think it should remain; on seeing it here, I understood it to mean Canadian-born British citizens... James F. (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename. "Britons" to (also) refer to modern British people is common - for instance, "Asian-Britons" (-wikipedia) get 1080 yahoo search hits, whereas "Asian British people" (-wikipedia) gets 342 hits. ex-pat Canadians who merely reside in the U.K. are not British and to include them here would be wrong regardless of what name you use here. perhaps a sub-cat for "Britons (or British) of Canadian descent" should be used to distinguish between Canadian-born Britons" and second generation British of Canadian descent. A rename should likely be Category:Canadian British people Mayumashu 14:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is not common practice in the UK to refer to "hyphenated Britons". This is a US practice and I see no reason to import it artificially via Wikipedia. The specific term "Canadian Britons" is a neologism. FWIW, "Britons" is a perfectly valid word to refer to people from Great Britain, but it is not the word used in cat names for people who are citizens of the UK. (The category is Category:British people). There are a variety of reasons for this, not least of which is that the UK does not only include Great Britain. The term "British" describes a legal nationality that applies to all citizens of the UK. Valiantis 14:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Valiantis CalJW 08:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is not very clear what this category is meant to be. --Mais oui! 10:08, 18 April 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:Murderers of children. the wub "?!" 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting change to a more legally sounding and less emotive description. -- Longhair 05:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this meant to people convicted of murdering whilst children, or of perpertrating the murders on children? If the former, how about "convicted murderous children"; if the latter, how about "Murders convicted of killing children". James F. (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the latter according the the text at the top. ×Meegs 12:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Murders convicted of killing children as James suggested. I'm not sure I like this subcategorization to begin with — I'm also open to deleting it — but the new name certainly an improvement. The convicted criterion is a mixed bag, though: it's a more clearly defined set of people, but also might exclude some of the category's current members. ×Meegs 12:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Murderers of children per Bhoeble (below) is also an improvement and works for me too. ×Meegs 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The emphasis on conviction is too modern. At many times and places there wasn't a formal conviction procedure, and even where there is one, some may have died before conviction. However it could be renamed category:Murderers of children to address the lack of clarity. Bhoeble 13:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Bhoeble --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category:Murderers of children per Bhoeble. Sumahoy 23:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Murderers of children per Bhoeble. -choster 13:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Bhoeble. siafu 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Murderers of children. Longhair's suggestion does nothing to help the ambiguity, and the point about the ones that never got convicted, per se, is well taken. — Apr. 12, '06 [13:20] <freakofnur_xture|>

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 into Category:Foreigners in China. the wub "?!" 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. too POV and unnecessary - there s already Category:Foreigners in China who by definition are residents, not citizens (or they could not be described as 'foreigners') Mayumashu 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge into Category:Foreigners in China per nom. The extra words are POV and unnecessary, respectively.×Meegs 07:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, yes. James F. (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Foreigners in China Bhoeble 13:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Foreigners in China per nom. Sumahoy 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. If they're not already well-known (i.e., notable) then they won't have wikipedia articles in the first place. siafu 19:55, 11 April 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 TexasAndroid 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category contains no articles and appears to be intended for advertising purposes. Delete. --Metropolitan90 03:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it currently stands. James F. (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 13:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:55, 11 April 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.