The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 3 times over 2 months --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

transferred from PROD, PROD does not and should not handle categories.

obsolete category specified by User:Ladybirdintheuk on 08:15, 7 July 2006

- 132.205.45.148 23:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sumahoy 00:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete - deprecated, empty, no further use - can be speedied four days after emptying, IIRC. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 8 July 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 regarding 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 --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a ridiculous category. Are we really going to categorize people based on whom they've been interviewed by? This is the first time I've nominated a category, so I'll just let the community hash it out. Sparsefarce 23:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, rename to Category:People interviewed by Nardwuar the Human Serviette. David Kernow 02:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this is a preposterous category. A list on the Nardwuar page would be much appropriate. In any event, delete. CJCurrie 04:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 04:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --MCB 06:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This cat can be covers simply by listing who Nardwar has intviewed in his article. --(chubbstar) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 18:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per nom. A category is not an automatic substitute for a list. --Wetman 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If we have a category for each interviewer, the famous and notable will find themselves in potentially dozens or even hundreds of categories, which is not desirable. Notinasnaid 07:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nightmare X 23:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• People who love Nardwuar really love Nardwuar, I know...but this is ridiculous and doesn't belong here. Listify on Nardwuar's article and delete; this is not significant enough an attribute of the interview subjects to merit categorization this way. Bearcat 04:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. The Kids Aren't Alright 19:13, 14 July 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 regarding 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 both, already listified --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic and pointless classification of potentially every one of Wikipedia's hundreds of thousands of biographical entries. Wikipedia is not for trivia or "fun facts". Delete --MCB 23:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obvious. More listcruft...Fearwig 00:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insignificant at best, moderately pointless... Michael 03:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Picaroon9288 03:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems like pointless trivia - if of real use should be in the article itself. RN 06:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – List of famous left-handed people is sufficient replacement for both of these. ×Meegs 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both categories; utterly trivial and discriminates against us ambis. --die Baumfabrik 07:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for various reasons but mainly that the List of famous left-handed people is sufficient. --(chubbstar) 08:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A category that would, if complete, include some 85 percent of all people on WP is not a good idea. (The left-handed counterpart is more defensible but redundant.) Nareek 11:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 18:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Wetman 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is more of a reference than anything else. Can aid persons studying statistical correlations between right and left handed people. Can and should be a useful, documented, valuable source of knowledge, available in (as far as I'm aware) no other place to such an extent. As it is only a category, I see very little bandwidth harm. I feel it would not detract from the aim or usefulness of Wikipedia.Loganlogn 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Left-handed people, delete Category:Right-handed people. Being left-handed is notable because it's rare and often viewed as sinister (hence the term) or exceptional in cultures all over the world. Being right-handed is sort of the default, so we don't need a cat for it. --M@rēino 14:00, 12 July 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 regarding 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 (already emptied) --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the 200 articles this category once had to the subcategories of Category:Parishes of Portugal, so, this category and its subcategory can be deleted. And can something be put there, warning those who may try to re create it to use Category:Parishes of Portugal? Mário 20:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but it was bad form to carry out the renaming yourself rather than requesting it here. Sumahoy 00:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not renamed, the articles weren't moved from there to another category. They were moved to different categories according to the municipality, that couldn't have been done by a bot, along with that, there are no bots to perform the task. Mário 09:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, . It was the pre-emptive move that was bad form. --Wetman 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't think it was, I just moved the articles to the subcategories (Category:Parishes of Municipality). I would have done it whether or not the category is deleted. Mário 20:07, 8 July 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 regarding 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 (already emptied) --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is a duplicate of Category:Justices of the Supreme Court of Missouri, and currently empty. Badbilltucker 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Wetman 18:58, 8 July 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 regarding 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 (already emptied) --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Rochdale A.F.C. players, this one is now empty NawlinWiki 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Convert to redirect. David Kernow 02:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC), updated 16:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom; should be uncontroversial. --MCB 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I emptied it, so have to agree Markspearce 17:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Wetman 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A red link when adding the cat to new players is a good hint to try A.F.C. for us fans of other clubs --Bedders 09:37, 10 July 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 regarding 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 (already emptied) --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category doesn't follow the standard for categorizing Portuguese parishes, which is "Parishes of Municipality" (see Category:Parishes of Portugal. Having smaller categories like Category:Parishes of Horta is much better than having the ~150 parishes of Azores in a single category, along with that, we agreed that the term should be "Parish" instead of "Freguesia". The category should be deleted. Mário 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Merchbow 11:09, 9 July 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 regarding 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. Conscious 13:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with Category:Musical films and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films naming convention. --Usgnus 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPORT I will admit, when I was creating the category, I was a little unsure of what to name it. This works. --WizardOfTheCDrive 15:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom. —  MusicMaker 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom. --(chubbstar) 08:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Casper Claiborne 06:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - LA @ 17:50, 10 July 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 regarding 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. Conscious 13:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nielson lists the market as "Monroe/El Dorado" CoolKatt number 99999 16:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An inane category that does not aid the reader. --Wetman 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. --MCB 18:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just checking: Are slashes in category names accepted...?  David Kernow 16:27, 12 July 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 regarding 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. Conscious 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Compositions by..." is the naming convention for categories containing works by a composer.

• Support Marc Shepherd 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Ssilvers 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Usgnus 17:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppost as per nom. —  MusicMaker 00:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Pzavon 02:08, 8 July 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 regarding 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 (already emptied) --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are proposed for deletion, per the discussion ongoing at Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan:

• Category:Songs from Gilbert and Sullivan operettas
• Category:Songs with music by Arthur Sullivan
• Category:Songs with lyrics by W. S. Gilbert
• Category:Gilbert and Sullivan operettas

• Support deletion Marc Shepherd 15:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion. Ssilvers 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. --Usgnus 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. —  MusicMaker 00:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Pzavon 02:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all --Wetman 18:58, 8 July 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 regarding 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 (already emptied) --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:The Presidents of the United States of America albums since the band's official name includes The and have already moved all of the articles there. Joltman 15:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Usgnus 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --(chubbstar) 08:29, 8 July 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 regarding 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 by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs)

Right now, I am the only name in this category, even though it has been around for quite some time. (There was one other person in it, but he apparently left.) This category is probably redundant since there are many denominations that identify themselves as holiness denominations (such as Methodists, Pentecostals, charismatics, etc.), and most of those denominations already have categories. Cswrye 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; should be uncontroversial. --MCB 06:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hahaha, delete now Antares33712 02:05, 12 July 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 regarding 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 --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently POV. It also appears to have been assembled on the assumption that every Greek who ever was in Alexandria was acquainted with Ancient Egyptian Wisdom, and thus includes Category:Library of Alexandria scholiasts, although they are intensely (and as far as we can tell) solely, Greek in culture. It used to contain Ptolemy the astronomer, until Bill Thayer threw it out, and explained why.

• Strong delete as nom. Septentrionalis 14:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as per nom. What is "Ancient Egyptian Wisdom" anyway? Maestlin 14:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Keep pending name change to something neutral, obviously POV and assumes too much historically; although, Alexandrian culture was syncretistic/eclectic and combined a number of surrounding cultural traditions: Jewish, Babylonian, magical, astrological, etc. Zeusnoos 15:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote based on comments of Connection and Tmoses below. Maybe "Literary sources for Egyptian culture"? It's still a difficult category, and entries would have to be examined carefully since some lore attribute to ancient Egypt in late antiquity is actually Hellenized Egyptian. Some ideas are falsely attributed as Egyptian in order to give them respectability. Zeusnoos 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered asking for a rename; but half the sparse contents of the cat are seriously questionable or simply wrong. Why not start over? Septentrionalis 20:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreement; although the article would be beyond my own capabilities. As for any cat, the major writers are few and easy to spot (Herodotus, Plato, Plotinus, Strabo, Heliodorus, etc. — say about a dozen, maybe two); but a serious attempt at circumscribing the subject would produce a scholarly collection of Fragmenta. My bet is that such a thing has already been done, and well done; could Wickedpedia even begin to approach it? At any rate I'm no Egyptian scholar, and will stay out of all this, other than than help put the kibosh on the obvious absurdity. Bill 01:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as above. (Although some kind of cat might be warranted for the purpose of tracking the classical sources for Egyptian civilization.) Bill 16:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And possibly one for Greeks who supposedly went to Egypt, like Pythagoras and Hecataeus, Septentrionalis 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an appropriate subject for an article, which should be exploring the Hellenistic filter of Egyptian cultural materials, a worthy endeavor. Presenting this subject as a category rather than developing it as an article might be seen as a method of circumventing logical, sourced explication of the subject and presenting the thesis as a fait accompli. Not a good precedent. --Wetman 18:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP--Connection 23:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis, please understand, NPOV is not an epithet you use whenever the issue is Not your POV. Read the policy and then continue here. "All significant points of view are presented, ..." So, are your arguments consistent with the said criteria? Your denial of facts is Censorship. How can you deny the striking fact that Greek authors and others have conveyed to us writings about Egypt, history, practices, mores, etc?

Your proposed assumptions are totally wrong. Classic writers are a valuable source for our researches related to ancient Egypt. That is the raison d'être of the Category. Please check the Category description that you are trying blatantly to ignore. It does not intend to bring judgement whether the author is being of Euclidian thinking or not. Wisdom here is used in the then sense, systemic or revealed knowledge. This does not assume whether it is superior or not.

Bill, if you have material related to tracking the classical sources for Egyptian civilization, please kindly share it. On another issue, if People Magazine reports biblical verses, and after a couple of millennia the source does not exist. Then, wouldn’t use it, as a researcher, to build your knlowledge about the Bible? I hope you see the picture.

A proposed new name is welcome. Maestlin, may be you are right that "the current name is awful".

I am happy I generated this debate regarding Ptolemy's work to elicit more pointers for research. It is a case in point to support keeping the Category.--Connection 23:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would like to point out to Connection that there are NPOV guidelines for categories since it is not possible to explain why an article is placed in a certain category. --Cswrye 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What exactly is a classical mediator of wisdom, and are there any other ways we might categorize them? How do we determine which classical influences have mediated wisdom which is specifically both Egyptian and ancient? I feel like I'm missing something, here. Would Category:Egyptian philosophers be sufficient? Luna Santin 10:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose is simply to collect writers who conveyed to us (vehicles of) otherwise lost knlowledge. The criteria is not being Egyptian or being Greek (ie, not ethnic). If we would study Ptolemy's work to elicit certain knowledge about ancient Egypt, then he is a could candidate. What short name for such collection cat would be used?--Connection 14:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 18:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename. I believe User:Connection is seeking a category to collect writers from the classical antiquity, who wrote about Egypt, a goal I very strongly agree with. Recently Category:Classical writers of Egypt history was deleted 1, unfortunately it already had happened before I noticed. I did not really see what apparently was wrong with this category, and I’m throughout tempted to recreate it or one of a similar name. What is in fact wrong with Classical writers of Egypt history? A very saying category if you ask med. "Classical writers" that is all Greek and Roman writers from Homer to the fall of the Western Roman Empire – who wrote about ancient and contemporary Egypt. Perfect! if you ask me.

Maybe Category:Classical writers about Egypt, Category:Classical writers on Egyptian matters or Category:Classical writers on Egyptian society, history and geography would be better? (pretty long that last one). Two other alternative names are suggested in the delete thread Category:Historians of Ancient Egypt and Category:Classical historians of Ancient Egypt. Both of which are not particle good and indeed subject to confusion. What is an historian? How much do you need to write before you are considered an historian? - and I don’t even think any classical writers meet the criteria of a modern definition of an historian.

Ancient Egypt per definition ended in 30 BC, does that mean that Strabo who writes mostly about contemporary Egypt in his Geography, with flashbacks to ancients times, does not belong in that category? – Despite that he is de facto one of the top five writers about "ancient Egypt" Twthmoses 20:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some category, preferably with the article suggested by Wetman, might be useful; certainly ancient non-Egyptian writers are a source for information about ancient Egypt. It is not useful, on the other hand, to grab anyone who may have written two lines germane to the subject in a large corpus of work, and plump them down in such a cat along with people like Herodotus and Plotinus where the Egyptian component is an important one. Connection, you got yourself into this one, why don't you start the article? Bill 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and cover in an article. Casper Claiborne 06:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; "______ mediator of _______ wisdom" is meaningless. Some sort of category identifying later writers about ancient Egypt might be useful, but this category is not. --MCB 18:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. POV category. Twittenham 21:33, 10 July 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 regarding 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. Conscious 13:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all the following, for consistency with parent category:

• Category:English Premiership football clubs to Category:FA Premier League clubs
• Category:English Premiership players to Category:FA Premier League players
• Category:Premier League Stadia to Category:FA Premier League stadiums — "stadiums" is more commonly used than "stadia", or possibly "venues" to match Category:Football venues in England
  • Category:Premier League Stadia to Category:FA Premier League venues, per comments below
• Category:Premiership seasons to Category:FA Premier League seasons

— sjorford++ 08:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per amended nom (i.e. with Category:Premier League Stadia to Category:FA Premier League venues). Regards, David Kernow 10:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC), updated 10:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC), converted to vote 16:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with amendment as per David Kernow. Osomec 18:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The real name should be FA Premier League, but not all the people know The FA is English FA. Wikipedia not for people living in UK. Matt86hk talk 05:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at the category page to find out. If mention is not made there, please insert it. Thanks, David Kernow 16:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all - Matches official name and title of FA Premier League article. Qwghlm 12:39, 12 July 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 regarding 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. Conscious 13:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was going to propose that these should be renamed to "Stadiums" in line with modern usage, but then it occurred to be that some athletics venues are indoors, and I would call such places arenas, so I am proposing venues instead.

• Category:Athletics stadia in Belgium --> Category:Athletics venues in Belgium
• Category:Defunct athletics stadia --> Category:Defunct athletics venues
• Category:Athletics stadia in Denmark --> Category:Athletics venues in Denmark
• Category:Athletics stadia in Germany --> Category:Athletics venues in Germany
• Category:Athletics stadia in Norway --> Category:Athletics venues in Norway
• Category:Athletics stadia in South Korea --> Category:Athletics venues in South Korea
• Category:Athletics stadia in Sweden --> Category:Athletics venues in Sweden
• Category:Athletics stadia in Switzerland --> Category:Athletics venues in Switzerland
• Category:Athletics stadia in the United Kingdom --> Category:Athletics venues in the United Kingdom
• Category:Track and field stadiums in the United States --> Category:Track and field venues in the United States
• Rename all Chicheley 07:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Can't think of anything better than "venue," and for a sidenote I've never heard "stadia" before in my life. Learning new things at CfD, every day. Luna Santin 11:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. David Kernow 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Sumahoy 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --Cswrye 04:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --(chubbstar) 08:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 18:26, 8 July 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 regarding 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. Conscious 13:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Stadiums" is now standard in all English speaking countries. I know some people don't like it, but the English language evolves, and in this case the change is quite clear cut. Chicheley 07:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 00:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle; however in light of CfD/Athletic venues above, perhaps it should be Category:Planned or proposed athletics venues? --MCB 06:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely not as most stadiums are not used for athletics. Osomec 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I can't think of a major (contemporary) stadium that is not used for athletic events. Perhaps this is U.S. vs. Commonwealth usage. In the U.S. and Canada, at least, stadium is synonymous with "large outdoor (including domed and retractable roof) venue for athletic events". Most are also used for concerts and large assemblies, but were built as athletic venues. --MCB 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are using athletics as a synonym for "sport". Only Americans do that. In the rest of the world "athletics" means what Americans call track and field. Twittenham 21:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks; that explains my confusion. In which case perhaps the category should be renamed to Category:Planned or proposed sports venues? --MCB 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd say there's a difference between a sports venue and a stadium, so renaming the category to "Planned or proposed sports venues" may be misleading. Regards, David Kernow 16:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 21:32, 10 July 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 regarding 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. Conscious 13:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to improve clarity and match the lead article. Chicheley 07:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 10:25, 7 July 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 regarding 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 Category Redirect (to match article) --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Limnodynastidae article was moved to Limnodynastinae a long time ago with no opposition. I only just realised that the category had not been changed along with the article, so I changed them over today. This category is now empty. It isn't controversial, otherwise something would have been mentioned during the renaming of the article. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 05:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Limnodynastinae. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Limnodynastidae. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Limnodynastinae is now just a redirect to Myobatrachidae. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:14, 7 July 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 regarding 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. Conscious 13:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two should also be renamed to be consistent with other cats and to avoid any confusion

• Category:Henchmen to Category:Fictional henchmen
• Category:Villains to Category:Fictional villains

--musicpvm 03:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename should be speedy as it seems we now have a convention by all of the renames done that are similar. - LA @ 06:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree. In some cases fictional and real characters are muddled up. Each case needs to be looked at separately. Sumahoy 00:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point to Sumahoy. - LA @ 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 10:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I've thought about any proposed speedy criteria change, a bit more; on the one hand, there's no real debate for these ones, but on the other hand, does it really come up that often? Of course, there's always the snowball clause. Luna Santin 11:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 00:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --(chubbstar) 08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — TKD::Talk 11:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. But please correct the spelling of "villain" in the proposal above! --MCB 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, corrected. --musicpvm 23:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Palendrom 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Michael 06:29, 14 July 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 regarding 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 --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with my nomination for deletion of Category:Colonels, breaking down military personnel by rank is problematic for several reasons. Rank is generally temporary, due to promotion, demotion, etc. In addition, since this category doesn't distinguish by nationality or branch of service, the title lieutenant colonel is almost pointless. Each military has different criteria for promotion, different levels of responsibility, etc etc. Most countries' militaries have well-maintained categories such as "XXX Army officers" which makes this category redundant. Additionally, this category has very few articles (5 at last count), and I doubt that the Wikipedia Project Military History will support this category or add it to any articles that they keep watch over. Nobunaga24 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Chicheley 07:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Luna Santin 10:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yes, it is a good point. Afonso Silva 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. The rank is far from universally used, does not represent the same level in all armies, and as pointed out, is not permanent. --MCB 18:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 15:36, 12 July 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 regarding 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 Listify and Delete --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-obvious category, list more approriate 203.152.114.7 00:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - Does not justify a category, make a list instead. --Latebird 07:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a major characteristic of a nation, so it is POV to use it as a basis for categorisation. Chicheley 07:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify or otherwise move into article form. Good content, I'd like to thank the submitter, just an article allows for far more debate, monitoring, and sourcing. Luna Santin 10:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV category. Nations could be categorised by their position (or rather their current government's position) on hundreds of issues, but that would be a very bad idea indeed. Sumahoy 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV category; current government positions should be dealt with in articles. --MCB 06:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but create an artile listing Pro-whaling nations, or any pro-hunting whatsoever (of what and when). I think that would make for in interesting article espically if it gives accurate citations and covers all countries without bias by maintaining NPOV. --(chubbstar) 08:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One problem is that I'm not sure if there are "pro-whaling" nations. There are states whose government permit whaling, but that may or may not reflect popular sentiment, or may exist for historical reasons, or be in the process of change, or where whaling is largely disapproved of but permitted in some minor cases, etc. (For example, is the U.S. a "pro-war nation" due to the war in Iraq? Some might argue yes (I would disagree), but regardless of one's views I think that's excessively reductionist and not useful for encyclopedic purposes.) --MCB 18:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would "Category:Nations that allow whaling" work?--Rayc 00:41, 13 July 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.