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. Deleted prior. ∞Who?¿? 00:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty, orphan, I can't even tell what it was intended to hold. If it later turns out to be useful, can easily be recreated. JesseW 23:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 23:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not useful. feydey 00:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I imagine it was once intended to hold the various stubs that might have merged into Lilo & Stitch: The Experiments (which is actually a redirect for some reason). Since they are all, thankfully, held in a single article, we do not need the cat. -Splash 04:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, uncontroversial. Nandesuka 12:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No category necessary, unless someone was planning to make individual articles on different "experiments". -- BD2412 ^talk 03:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

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. ∞Who?¿? 00:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Category:People's Action Party (Singapore) politicians in line with the naming format of other subcategories in Category:Singaporean politicians by party.--Huaiwei 20:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is there a precedent for doing it this way instead of the other way? The parent cat mentioned currently only has two subcats-- this one and Category:Workers' Party (Singapore) politicians. I personally think that the other way (without paren's) might be better, absent previously established consensus. siafu 22:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I initially thought the version above was far better, until I realise it is potentially confusing later as some party names does have the word "Singapore" in their party names. For example, the Singapore Democratic Party, the Singapore Progressive Party, Singapore People's Party, and so on. In particular, the Singapore Alliance Party and the Alliance Party (yet to be created) are two different parties here. Or is there a better way of presentation other then the one suggested?--Huaiwei 05:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Good point. siafu 23:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Same questions, but answered by comment. ∞Who?¿? 18:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete ∞Who?¿? 00:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worst Supporting Actress Razzie (film), Category:Worst Actor Razzie (film), Category:Worst Supporting Actor Razzie (film) and Category:Worst Actor Razzie Nominee (film)

Previously deleted Category:Worst Actress Razzie (film). Similar category - not needed. Should be a list. K1Bond007 17:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. No argument. siafu 17:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, a list can also do the same job. feydey 00:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Should this be a speedy delete since we've deleted these before? --ssd 01:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (note that I've combined the four nominations, as the same argumentation applies to all). Radiant_>|< 10:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the Razzie awards are not notable enough for a cat. gren グレン 19:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary. Flowerparty ^talk 19:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of them. Pavel Vozenilek 21:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based upon precedent and merge to a list if one does not already exist. Hall Monitor 23:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Nominator suggested a rename to Category:Computer and video games by genre, but I think a delete is more in order. --Kbdank71 16:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant of Category:Computer and video game genres and its subcats. See Category:First-person shooters for one such example. K1Bond007 17:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per K1Bond007. siafu 17:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per K1Bond007. ∞Who?¿? 18:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 00:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Characters in written science fiction as per the recent decision to rename Category:Literary characters to Category:Characters in written fiction DES ^(talk) 15:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Previous nomination ended in No Consensus, in good part because of a desire to wait to see what happened to it's parent category. Well, the parent is being moved, and this change puts the SF sub in line with the parent. TexasAndroid 21:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per previous discussions. K1Bond007 01:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

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 defer until category titles discussion completes. ∞Who?¿? 00:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Category:Mayors you will find that the title of this category is inconsistent with the title of other similar categories. I suggest renaming this one to Category:Irish mayors. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Defer to Wikipedia:Category titles. Radiant_>|< 10:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Defer as Radiant!. But this is a particularly difficult case. Irish can refer to anyone on the island of Ireland, both North and Republic, so the proposed name wouldn't really do anyway. -Splash 17:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer as above. for the matter of that "Category:Irish mayors could refer to mayors of irish ethnicity outside of ireland. There have been many such mayors in the U.S. and due to the percieved domination of urban politics by the Irish in some parts of the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th centuary, this might actually be a significant and useful category, or at least a list. DES ^(talk) 17:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation. ∞Who?¿? 00:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was listed here a few weeks ago and was deleted. Now User:Coolcat has recreated it — should be speedied. — Davenbelle 06:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• see: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 30#Category:Extraterrestrial Wikipedians
• Done. Radiant_>|< 10:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Good. It's a redundancy anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.195.211 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 15 August 2005

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 all. ∞Who?¿? 00:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.92.72.52 had started to create this kind of categories:

• Category:November 11 births
• Category:March 1 births
• Category:August 16 births
• Category:January 20 births
• Category:March 25 births added missed similar empty cat ∞Who?¿? 05:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and also started to attach people to these cats (these are his only edits). I am not aware any previous discussion on this but IMHO such "categories" have no use than to clutter an article. Pavel Vozenilek 02:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Radiant_>|< 10:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Births by year is quite adequate. -- Arwel 12:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. List if absolutely necessary. siafu 17:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There has been some discussion on this: I proposed exactly the same a few months ago, but that was quickly "vetoed". Aecis 22:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. feydey 00:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lot, it's overcatting. -Splash 04:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, not necessary, only trivia... but, interesting to a select few? gren グレン 18:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Already listed at November 11. Little use in a category to show that Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor has the same birthday as Demi Moore. Flowerparty ^talk 19:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although this is trivia, it would be interesting to be able to click on a category by month/date of birth and see a retrieve a list of common birthdays. Hall Monitor 23:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is already possible, see the "Births" section of November 11, for example. siafu 23:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very true, but clicking on November 11 gives you a wide range of events, a small fraction of which are birth dates. Hall Monitor 23:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about that but I voted keep only because of the low update rate of such pages. Categories would be more likely to be kept up to date was my thinking. gren グレン 19:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just silly. --DR31 _(talk) 01:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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