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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as C1. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused cruft, maybe a predecessor of Category:Redirects or one of its subcategories. -- Omniplex 22:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom as unused. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:09, 4 May 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. - TexasAndroid 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Poor and possibly POV category name; good concept. Rindis 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Rindis 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The World of Warcraft Board Game isn't even all that Talisman-like. The new title is good, but it needs a clear definition in the explanatory text.--Mike Selinker 04:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with explanation per Mike above. David Kernow 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went ahead and did the rewrite as sugested. I think it explains what the category is for, and if you don't like it, recommend changes, change it yourself, or recommend a delete of the cat. This way you all know what you're getting into ahead of time. ;) --Rindis 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a great definition to me, and all the games fit it.--Mike Selinker 04:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Percy Snoodle 11:55, 7 May 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. - TexasAndroid 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: This is hopefully the last of the problematic South Korean categories[, plus a Greek one]. I have checked [...] the articles [...] Nathcer 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge[/rename] Nathcer 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename. David Kernow 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename. Carina22 18:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename Ian3055 15:39, 6 May 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 19:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I found it, this category contained only itself, category:Transport operators, which should be on the same level if anything as it is not just concerned with road transport operators, and a spam link, which I just removed. It is incorrectly capitalised and carving out the huge proportion of the articles in category:transportation which would belong in here doesn't strike me as a worthwhile exercise. The categorisation of transport articles works fine without this category. Nathcer 17:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Nathcer 17:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay category:Road transport exists. That's fine, but this one should still be deleted. Nathcer 18:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above (and faulty capitalization). David Kernow 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choalbaton 23:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 12:59, 10 May 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. - TexasAndroid 19:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a category:shipping and rather than creating an extra tier, I recommend that this is renamed to make it explicit that river and canal transport may be included. Nathcer 17:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Nathcer 17:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Golfcam 01:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "transport" or "transportation"...?  Regards, David Kernow 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Transport for the UK obviously. I presume transportation is correct for the U.S., unless an American user can confirm that it isn't. Hawkestone 17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Ian3055 15:40, 6 May 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. - TexasAndroid 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category seems to be concerned primarily with the manufacturing of vehicles other than cars. At least that is what I deduce from the contents and the fact that it exists alongside Category:Korean automobile manufacturers (shortly to be renamed itself), which I have made a subcategory. Nathcer 17:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Nathcer 17:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Scranchuse 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ReeseM 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Alan Liefting 12:57, 10 May 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. (Most are saying delete, but the contents in general need to keep a home in the current category family.) - TexasAndroid 19:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Formerly a redirect, recently brought into use, and that can only be a bad idea. "Corporation" has some specialist meanings, but it it primarily a synonym of "company" that is used in American English. Wikipedia has chosen to make "company" the primary term, and having this as well as category:Companies is likely to lead to burgeoning confusion and duplication in the category system. As another indication that this division is unhelpful, the subcategory category:Anti-corporate activism is plainly concerned with the organisations classified as companies in Wikipedia. Nathcer 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Nathcer 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The cat was brought into re-use as a vehicle to note when a company is legally a corporation. Currently we have no idea what percentage of companies on Wikipedia that have articles are corporations. Is it 10%? 50%? 95%? If it's a very large number, "corporations" may be a much more suitable macro-category level name than "companies". Perhaps a List of corporations would be a better way to provide encyclopedic information to Wikipedia users on how many and which companies are corporations? Kurieeto 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This is a distinction that does not need to be made. Precise legal forms vary from country to country (see the corporation article). The category system is about grouping related articles, not finetuning legal niceities. There is no chance whatsoever of any such attempt being understood or observed by users from all over the world, from countries with different legal system. CalJW 04:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: "Corporation" can have many meanings (e.g. in British English it is often used to describe various historic municipal bodies; it may refer also to a range of types of legally recognized organizations) but it is apparently being used here purely to mirror the idea of a for-profit company. Since not all companies are incorporated this doesn't seem to be a very good idea, as per CalJW and Kurieeto. TheGrappler 21:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Keep - make parent category Category:Legal entities, and specify that the category is for the "concept" of "corporation" - not for individual companies/corporations. (A rule not likely to be followed?) There is clearly good use for a "Corporation" category - see all the subcats of "Corporation" that currently exist and are not about individual companies. Outriggr 23:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC) and updated vote on 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category is simply based on American English usage and has demonstrably confused several users who have put individual companies in it. The subcategories belong in category:Business and its subcategories and indeed they are there already. For example "Corporations law" is just American English equivalent of "company law" (I'm aware that there are technical differences, as will always be the case between jurisdictions). Carina22 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CalJW Ian3055 15:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per user:Outriggr. — Instantnood 17:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 02:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there is a need for a separate category it should be given a less confusing name, such as Category:Incorporation, but the contents of this category suggest that there is not a need. ReeseM 00:57, 8 May 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. - TexasAndroid 19:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is an offshoot of the problematic categorisation of South Korean companies that I am working to tidy up. It only contains two articles, which are both Korean, but I think it has potential. "Vehicle" is comprehensive and version of English neutral. Nathcer 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Nathcer 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Great work over the past two days, Nathcer!  Regards, David Kernow 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Alan Liefting 12:56, 10 May 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. - TexasAndroid 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent naming of biological family categories SP-KP 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (ideally the article Kinglet would also be renamed Regulidae? After all, subcat Regulus contains not just kinglets, but firecrests, goldcrests...) Outriggr 23:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC) & 23:42, 4 May 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. - TexasAndroid 19:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:CB Lucentum Alicante -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what the speedying section (above) is for! Speedy merge. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 2 May 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. - TexasAndroid 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:CB Lucentum Alicante basketball players -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what the speedying section (above) is for! Speedy merge. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 2 May 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. - TexasAndroid 19:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:People buried in unmarked graves -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't give adequate evidence or reasons for deletion. --Deryck C. 16:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice there was a typo. Could ProveIt please denote this type of deletion proposal as "Merge to / typo of category:xxx" instead of "see category:xxx"? --Deryck C. 16:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what the speedying section (above) is for! Speedy merge. And I agree with Deryck - give a reason. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy unmarked burial. David Kernow 18:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It an obvious typo. Alan Liefting 12:55, 10 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Alan Liefting 13:16, 4 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Alan Liefting 13:16, 4 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Alan Liefting 13:17, 4 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Fate/stay night characters -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Indian film directors -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Newspapers of New York -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Spanish nobility -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:17, 2 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:StarCraft Wikipedians -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what the speedying section (above) is for! Speedy merge. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (miscapped, emptied cat) --BD2412 03:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See: Category:University of Miami alumni -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what the speedying section (above) is for! Speedy merge. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 2 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unused. Looks like it was created as a test. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as above. It was the users only contribution since 22 April. Alan Liefting 13:13, 4 May 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:The arts. Conscious 13:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 15:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "The arts" to "Arts" or "The Arts" and merge. We don't have "The sciences" (and if we did, it should be "The Sciences"). At least capitalize "arts" - the article The Arts itself uses capitalization. Outriggr 23:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that Category:The arts and Category:Arts be moved to the main (Top 10) category Category:Art. There is something really wrong with this setup! Outriggr 01:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at what happened when I created Category:Art lists: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 17. --JeffW 02:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Visual) art is only one of "The arts". CalJW 04:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of your point. Category:Art has the following description: "Art includes the varied arts of visual arts, music, literature, dance, theatre, and the like." To examine a little closer: The subcat Opera is under "The arts" and "Art" - it clearly meets the description of the category "Art" and "The arts" is redundant (or in any case, one of them is). I would merge the contents of "The arts" into "Art", make the parent category of the "Fine Art" subcategories "Art", and go from there. OK, so we're discussing something much beyond the scope of this Cfd. Outriggr 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it shouldn't have that desciption and I will change it. This whole thing is a bloody disaster. The workable system we used to have has been wrecked by non-native speakers who don't understand normal English usage. CalJW 01:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the current description. If I had to pick one name for this concept I'd call it "Arts" (as in "Arts and Sciences" - 93m Google hits), and that's precisely the one we're voting to delete. Odd. Outriggr 02:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The description bore no relation to the contents, which were correct. I really don't see what possible benefit usage of the hugely vague term "arts and sciences" could confer on the category system. CalJW 02:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Now Category:Opera and Category:Poetry are grandchildren of "Art", which you have defined as visual arts. And FtR, I was not proposing any category named "Arts and Sciences". Anyway, clearly this needs to be dealt with elsewhere!) Outriggr 02:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "The arts" is marginally clearer, but as the distinction between "art" and "the arts" is not generally understood as has been demonstrated on this page at least half a dozen times, we should seriously think about deleting all of the arts categories and putting the contents back in "culture" where they were until a few months back. CalJW 04:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:The arts per Outriggr's suggestion. Definite article in this category is ugly and inconsistent with standard practice on Wikipedia, but there is still a need for an Arts category distinct from an Art one - see arts project talk page. Re: Category:Opera etc., they should simply not be grandchildren of "art", but of "the arts". 81.109.153.108 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is being batted about at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts and we're trying to come up with a categorisation structure as we speak. The discussion there currently favours Category:Arts over Category:The arts. A quick appraisal of the article at The arts and Art leads me to believe Category:Arts is the better category. Any confusion with Category:Art could be solved, it's suggested, by merging Category:Art with Category:Visual arts and adopting the latter's name. Hiding Talk 22:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Outriggr again) I agree with Hiding. Keep "Arts", merge and redirect "The arts" to "Arts", redirect "Art" to "Visual arts", and refine from there. Within this construct, I don't think a middle-man category "Fine arts" is needed. Outriggr 23:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is used in this context much more often than it is in science. Choalbaton 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Hiding Keep Ian3055 15:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspend vote until WikiProject Arts formulates a proposal. >>sparkit|TALK<< 23:42, 7 May 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 19:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is an important enough characteristic of cities to warrant categorization this way; only one city has ever been added. Delete. Bearcat 07:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 15:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, but if kept, lowercase "Swamplands" and "Marshes". David Kernow 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 13:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept the distance of the city from the marsh or swampland and the min size of the swamp or marsh needs to be stipulated. What about cities close to bogs, fens, wetlands, springs, creeks, streams, rivers, ad infinitum. Alan Liefting 13:17, 10 May 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a meaningful category; most of its former contents were "lists of lists".

• Delete Nominator has already depopulated the category and changed it to a redirect to Category:Lists of lists, but when I advised him of the process he agreed to take it here. --JeffW 14:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if a good place for replacement is fitted. --Deryck C. 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the contents have already been moved to Category:Lists of lists, if that's what you mean? --JeffW 18:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (I'm nom) - and now I am aware of the cfd procedure thanks to JeffW. Outriggr 23:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Bearcat 07:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See category:Buildings and structures in Burkina Faso. Delete Choalbaton 03:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• I'm pretty sure that a category based on a spelling error can be speedied if the properly spelled category already exists, actually. Consider the deed done. Bearcat 07:08, 2 May 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.