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. Vegaswikian 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename [both] to clarify. Mais oui! 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) and 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per nom. David Kernow 11:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Hawkestone 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Twittenham 16:02, 11 June 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. Vegaswikian 04:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I emptied this category a while ago during a reorganization, distributing its contents among various overlapping or more specific categories such as Category:Mathematical games and Category:Logic puzzles. Since it's still empty several months later, I'm deducing that no-one sees any desperate need which is not adequately covered by these other categories. —Blotwell 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. If we need a new category for this eventually, a better name would be category:Math puzzles.--Mike Selinker 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be insensitive. Mathematical is the same in all versions of English. Math/maths isn't. Twittenham 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, now I know. OK, "Mathematical puzzles."--Mike Selinker 13:56, 12 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand acro. As a member almost no one ever knew what this was unless I expanded the acro. Vegaswikian 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Change name - I believe it is better, very few outside the electrical engineering world know what IEEE is, and probably, this will match the policies. 81.84.150.179 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is mine (I'm not using my own computer). Afonso Silva 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Change name - I agree it should be listed by its complete name with a reference from the acronym. Dbrown11 17:24, 6 June 2006 (EDT)
• KEEP very few people know what the acronym stands for, alot of people know that IEEE standardizes things. WiFi (IEEE 802.11), IEEE floating point format (IEEE 754), WiMAX (IEEE 802.16), FireWire (IEEE 1394), Parallel port (IEEE 1284), Ethernet (IEEE 802.3), POSIX, ... Most references in literature do not indicate what IEEE is either. 132.205.44.134 23:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Largely unknown to non-specialists in my opinion. The full name is easy to understand. Hawkestone 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abbreviations should always be expanded unless they are common general English terms and the full version would be very, very long. CalJW 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is expanded. -- Usgnus 23:46, 8 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' - these are the same thing. If business people are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia biography, then they are by definition leaders within their field. There is no objective method of differentiating who goes in the main "Businesspeople" cats and who gets elevated to the priveleged status of "leaders". (Please note that this category was nominated for deletion on 30 March, 2005: the result was Keep (please see Category_talk:Business_leaders#CFD Discussion.) Mais oui! 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. While I don't think "business people" and "business leaders" are the same thing, I can see the problem with this category - it's nebulous. Between Category:Business executives and Category:Entrepreneurs, I think we have "business leaders" covered. (Rhetorically, we aren't losing information by not defining Bill Gates as a "business leader".) Outriggr 06:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Merge. If you consider business people like Andrew Fastow and Leona Helmsley - who were both in trouble with the authorities, would you give these two the same cat as B. Gates or Rockefeller??? I know it's my opinion, but Fastow and the likes of him are not leaders... JungleCat 21:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Purely subjective. Senior shelf-stackers are called "team leaders". Hawkestone 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Everyone in Wikipedia should be a leader in his or her field. Nathcer 09:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Either meaningless or based on a series of value-judgements. Honbicot 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge POV. Carina22 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge pointless when you have better categories that divide the subject area more appropriately - Trident13 07:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Business executives (people who lead employees) and Category:Entrepreneurs (people who lead industry by running a business). -- Usgnus 18:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is going to do the work, and what about non-executive second and third generation chairmen? ReeseM 01:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. ReeseM 01:56, 12 June 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 relist Tim! 11:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand acro to match article about group. Also cap fix. Vegaswikian 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Presidents of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. In any case, remove abbreviation. CalJW 21:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- Usgnus 23:47, 8 June 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 Tim! 11:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category was just deleted, but the same person chose to create it once again. Please see previous discussion and "delete" consensus here. Once again, this is an unncessary cat that will clutter pages. Wikipedia should not have categories for all the artits that have ever charted on a specific Billboard chart. If that continues, things will go out of control as users will create categories for every chart. We already have dance artist categories such as Category:American dance acts. This one has no use. --Musicpvm 17:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so you made your point. Thats why I'm going to eliminate the American dance acts category and the Billboard Hot Dance/Club Play artists category and merge them into a new propsed listing Category:Dance/Club music artists which should solve the confusion. I didn't like my contributions deleted by people who think I'm creating a lot of 'clutter' but if this the answer to the the complaint that you are making this should please you and others who feel the same way. Robert Moore 17:35, 6 June 2006 (PST)
  • Category:American dance acts should not be eliminated. That is the way dance artists are categorized on Wikipedia (see Category:Dance artists by country). The new category Category:Dance/Club music artists that you created could work as a subcategory in Category:Dance music but there is no reason to move artists that are already in Category:American dance acts into a broader dance category. --Musicpvm 01:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a point there. If thats the case then I'll go ahead and move the Category:Billboard Hot Dance/Club Play artists listings over to the new category. Robert Moore 18:35 6 June 2006 (PST)
• Speedy based on previous concensus Antares33712 19:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Honbicot 16:53, 8 June 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. Vegaswikian 04:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Totally useless. Afonso Silva 15:48, 7 June 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. Vegaswikian 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Th[ese categories are for] more than 2 centuries in the future. Agathoclea 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC) [and, for Category:2213, Philip Stevens 09:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)].[reply]

• Delete [all]. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Antares33712 19:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all or rename to something like "[23rd century/2210s/2213/etc] in fiction". David Kernow 02:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC), amended 00:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't about fiction created in 2213, so that would still muddle the real world with the well, unreal world. Hawkestone 22:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough; I forgot about categories such as "Year in music". Have simpified vote accordingly. Thanks, David Kernow 00:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Trekcruft. BoojiBoy 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per BoojiBoy. Valiantis 14:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fictional things should not prompt the creation of categories of types which relate primarily to real world things. Hawkestone 22:42, 7 June 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 never tagged and no consensus Tim! 11:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 17:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such a word as Alcázars in Spanish (the plural for Alcázar is Alcázares) and given that the Spanish accent has been kept, it should be moved accordingly or renamed to English equivalent (maybe Alcazar buildings in Spain?). E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Proposal to rename in Spanish. Chicheley 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: The point is that the current name (Alcázars ) is grammatically incorrect in both English (as there is no accent in English) and Spanish (being Alcázares the right term). E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The current name is a typo. Afonso Silva 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge up to Category:Castles in Spain. The article Alcázar (which BTW uses the form "alcazars" as the plural) defines an alcázar as "a Spanish castle". There is no more detailed definition to explain how an alcázar differs from any other sort of castle (apart from its being in Spain). Both cats are small (single figures) and neither is a subcat of the other currently (although the article alcázar is in Category:Castles in Spain, Category:Alcázars in Spain isn't!), so this appears to be as much duplication as a useful subcat. Also the name is tautological. Valiantis 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought of this merge. I don't know if it is more correct, but in the Spanish wikipedia, it happens like that. The Alcázares are included in the Castles category. Just one more thing, the plural is Alcázares. Afonso Silva 22:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The plural in Spanish is "alcázares". That would not be a standard English plural. If the word has been taken into English, it would generally have a normal English plural form (and it would be a little high-falutin' to write the acute accent too) so it would be "alcazars". If the word has not been taken into English, then a Spanish plural would be correct, but then it's questionable to have it as a cat name in the English Wikipedia. Compare, for example, the word portico which is of Italian origin. the Italian plural is "portichi"; in English the plural is formed in the standard manner - "porticos". Valiantis 21:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge up to Category:Castles in Spain, which is more use friendly for non-Spanish speakers. Hawkestone 22:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose to merge: An Alcazar is not necessarily a castle. Not many people (if any) would consider the Alcazar of Seville a castle. It is a particular type of building different than a castle. I believe that the confusion arises from the Alcazar of Segovia, which is indeed a castle. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The existing form is in English, so it doesn't matter if it is not correct in Spanish. The accent could be dropped to make it clearer it is named in English. ReeseM 01:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: It is NOT in English. If it were to be in English, it should say Category:Alcazars in Spain. There is no accent in English. As I have said before, either rename to Category:Alcázares in Spain or Category:Alcazars in Spain but do not let it be half-cooked as it currently stands. Regards, --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:03, 12 June 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 Tim! 11:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's subcategories were nominated, so I put the parent up as well. Not sure if I feel it should actually be deleted at this point, so I'll abstain Antares33712 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An affiliation with a religion has an effect - one way or another - on a person. A politian stands out more in that regard. If POV is becoming a problem find a clear qualifying criteria like it has been done for Category:Roman Catholic politicians.Agathoclea 17:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Agathoclea Antares33712 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lot of them The qualifying criteria on the RC politicians cat are "politicians who have been born or raised or later converted as Roman Catholics, they are not necessarily still Roman Catholics or any other sort of Christian, nor can their actions be considered as condoned by the Catholic church." That's not "clear qualifying criteria", that's a disclaimer. Effectively we're saying, these people were technically RC ar some point (possibly only in their childhood), though we don't for certain that they all still are (though we probably know for a fact that some have made it explicit that they are not), and when we say "Roman Catholic" they might have been raised by fervent Christian Brothers and fired with an evangelical zeal or they might have had their heads dipped for the sake of convention and never seen the inside of a church again. (BTW, no-one gets "born Catholic", at most one can be born into a Catholic family). If this is the sort of clear qualifying criteria we are going to get on all these hazy ill-defined cats then they should go and go now. Valiantis 14:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable unless we want specialist categories such as Category:Politicians differing from their religion's position on capital punishment or Category:Politicians differing from their religion's position on abortion etc. which are clearly as interesting and encyclopedic as "Eccentrics" and "Anti-war people" etc. categories that have been kept by this process. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Neither the parent nor the subcategories should be deleted. Kestenbaum 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The assertion that religion influences politics needs to be justified on a case by case basis, but the category system is too crude to do that in an appropriate manner. Osomec 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Religion has had an effect on politics for quite a long time. User:Dimadick

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. Vegaswikian 05:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that watch TV3 to Category:Wikipedians who watch TV3

Category:Wikipedians that watch ITV1 to Category:Wikipedians who watch ITV1

Category:Wikipedians that watch ITV2 to Category:Wikipedians who watch ITV2

Category:Wikipedians that watch ITV3 to Category:Wikipedians who watch ITV3

Category:Wikipedians that watch ITV4 to Category:Wikipedians who watch ITV4

Category:Wikipedians that watch LWT to Category:Wikipedians who watch LWT

Category:User BBC One to Category:Wikipedians who watch BBC One

Category:User C-SPAN to Category:Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN

To change the word "that" to the word "who" for the first five and to have the others match.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What purpose is served by these? If this practice spreads, then we will have lists of hundreds of networks/channels available and users with scores of these on their pages. If these get added by userboxes that is more load for the graphics servers. Vegaswikian 17:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Vegaswikian. At least two of these would include the vast majority of British people. They are a waste of server space. CalJW 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. BBC and C-SPAN are the only categories that have substantial membership, and even then I don't think those categories are all that necessary. Besides, that just opens up the door to Category:Wikipedians who watch Bloomington, Minnesota public access cable TV. --Elkman 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I was just worried about grammar, that was all. I won't argue over this.
  —Lady Aleena talk/contribs 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This is a multi-channel world. Do we want people to spend Wikimedia's bandwidth adding themselves to hundreds of these? ReeseM 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. --Dakart 08:32, 13 June 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 relist for further opinions Tim! 11:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both as the page list footballers to have played internationals for their national football team and as this how other like cat pages have been named Mayumashu 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per nom; I guess people know that football = soccer here. Regards, David Kernow 01:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both. The "England international footballers" should be "English international footballers" too. Same goes for Scotland and Montserrat. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but not per nom use "France" and "Germany" instead. It is the team that is relevant, not the country. People can have more than one nationality, but FIFA only allows them to play for one international team (subject to some fiddly exceptions) and they should only be categorised by that one team. Hawkestone 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to category:France senior international team footballers etc. There should also be categories for under-21 teams, so disambiguation is necessary. ReeseM 02:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest senior team as default Category:X international team footballers and all others such as under-21, women's, etc teams use Category:X under-21 international team footballers, Category:X women's international team footballers, etc. David Kernow 00:35, 15 June 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 Tim! 10:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to match other CVG categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per CyberSkull. Thunderbrand 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Educational computer and video games. Regards, David Kernow 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Educational computer and video games. ReeseM 02:03, 12 June 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 Tim! 10:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Normal" by itself just doesn't sound right, that all the other Pokémon are therefore not "normal". It really means that their type is "normal". Geopgeop 08:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The problem with this is that people who learn there's a "Dragon Pokémon" and "Water Pokémon" will presume there's a "Normal Pokémon" category, not a "Normal-type Pokémon" category, so when new ones come out, this category is likely to be recreated. But it could be a case similar to Category:Live (band) albums, which is so named not because there's another music act named Live but because "Live albums" is a phrase that matters. Not really sure which way to go on this.--Mike Selinker 13:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further thought, I think accuracy is more important than avoiding possible confusion here, so I oppose this nomination.--Mike Selinker 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A quick google search shows that in discussions of pokemon types these are really referred to as Normal Pokemon. So I'd go with what is normal usage. --JeffW 23:55, 6 June 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. Vegaswikian 05:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populated by an entire one person.Ardenn 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad, two now. Still not a thriving catetory. Could go in Category:Ryerson University people. Ardenn 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two that have been written up so far; have you put any effort into investigating how many other presidents the institution has had? The validity of a category such as this is not defined by how many articles it does contain at this particular time — it's defined by how many articles the category will contain when it's fully populated. No vote until someone can advise how many other presidents Ryerson has had besides the two currently filed in the category. Bearcat 06:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can't be more than 2 I think, it's only 5 years old. 70.51.8.60 06:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing about Ryerson that's only 5 years old is the name "Ryerson University" without other words in it. The institution is something like 60 years old. Bearcat 00:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like this is another category where number doesn't matter much.--Mike Selinker 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ryerson has been in existence since 1948 (albeit under different names), therefore obvious potential for growth. Also note Category:Presidents of York University , another Toronto university, currently has but 4 entries. The deletion vote was called 2 minutes after the category was created, clearly premature (this raises the need for a cooling-off policy for such deletes). The categorisation is consistent with other Toronto universities. Also, Category:Ryerson University people is empty at this moment, so a transfer to there doesn't gain anything. Dl2000 22:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent - pm_shef 02:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - now has five entries, two existing articles Terry Grier and Walter Pitman have been added to the cat and I've written an article for Ryerson's founder, Howard Kerr. Homey 19:52, 13 June 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. Two options for the name format. Selected the nom since there was no strong objection and no support for the alternative. Vegaswikian 05:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to bring the following state elections into similar formatting (see Category:United States elections, 2006):

• Category:2006 Maryland elections → Category:Maryland elections, 2006
• Category:2006 Massachusetts elections → Category:Massachusetts elections, 2006
• Category:2006 Georgia (U.S. state) elections → Category:Georgia (U.S. state) elections, 2006
• Category:2006 Wisconsin elections → Category:Wisconsin elections, 2006

—Markles 01:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Other events where dates serve to disambiguate seem to use "...of Year" or "...in Year"; perhaps the same might work here (and for Category:United States elections, 2006 and elsewhere)...?  Regards, David Kernow 00:38, 15 June 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 Do nothing. Vegaswikian 05:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few pages under the second category, and the first has been cleared out. However, in reality, the third category is the correct one, to avoid amiguity with the game The Legend of Zelda. I created the second one, and am now proposing to settle to the correct name once and for all. This change would also apply to all subcategories, see Category:The Legend of Zelda. Also see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#The Legend of Zelda for original proposal to moved from Category:Legend of Zelda to Category:The Legend of Zelda -- NTDOY Fanboy 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:The Legend of Zelda series
• Category:The Legend of Zelda series characters (made by me)
• Category:The Legend of Zelda series games (made by me)
• Category:The Legend of Zelda series media
• Category:The Legend of Zelda series places
• Category:The Legend of Zelda series villains
• Category:The Legend of Zelda series weapons and items

• Do nothing: There is already an ongoing debate here concerning most of this. Please wait for it's resolution before doing anything else. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:58, 6 June 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.