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. —akghetto ^talk 09:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upper case L. Category:Cambodian law already exists.

• Delete, obvious. Pavel Vozenilek 05:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if it has any content at the time, otherwise delete Piccadilly 13:29, 7 February 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. —akghetto ^talk 09:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created some of these subcategories, and now I regret it. Among other things, they are much too detailed which makes it too hard to find their contents. One category with all their contents would suffice. Really. —Markles 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, add Category:Historical U.S. Senate committees to that list too. —Markles 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Vegaswikian 03:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom. Hang your head in shame Markles, it took you eleven categories to regret this? :P Green Giant 23:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories were all ballistic missiles (or empty and labelled for deletion). The category is now depopulated with its subcategories moved to Category:Ballistic missiles. GCarty 20:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE, what about the SM-62 Snark, SSM-N-8 Regulus, or the V-1? Those weren't ballistic missiles, but are strategic missiles. 132.205.44.134 23:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Those missiles you named are all early cruise missiles. I've made Category:Cruise missiles and Category:Ballistic missiles subcategories. Is this what you had in mind? If anyone still wants to delete this category, nominations are still open. GCarty 21:02, 8 February 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closing admin: I'm just closing this as nominated to get rid of the abbreviation. If someone wants to renominate it to see if "American" will take, go to it. I personally think that since the President is "President of the United States", and not "American President", the advisor should at least somewhat mirror that. For the record, there was not a mass renaming to American from U.S. and United States. The naming conventions spell out what should be American and what should be United States (and there are a great many that are "United States". --Kbdank71 14:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy by - Vegaswikian 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I think it should be "American presidential advisors" - Darwinek 17:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom. United States is specific to the USA whereas American could mean the whole of the two continents. Green Giant 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You probably missed the mass renaming from U.S. and United States to American. - Darwinek 11:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish that we had more comments here. I think that "American presidential advisors" sounds better and will support that form over the one in the nomination. In any case, plase don't rule no consensus and leave in the U.S. Vegaswikian 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy by - Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)}

• \o/* 07:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Expand the abbreviation, please. - EurekaLott 18:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:Boy Scouts of America national high adventure bases. Vegaswikian 20:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportCategory:Boy Scouts of America national high adventure bases. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about Category:High adventure bases (Boys Scouts of America)? It's more in line with the other articles and cats in the ScoutingWikiProject. Rlevse 22:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Actually, these bases are administered by the BSA's High Adventure division. So, I now propose we name it Category:Boy Scouts of America High Adventure bases or Category:High Adventure bases (Boy Scouts of America). Rlevse 10:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Scouting Project and Portal coordinator.[reply]

• Comment as these bases are administered by the BSA's National High Adventure division, national high adventure should be somewhere in the title. There are dozens of council-level BSA high adventure bases so such a title as Rlevse suggested would lead to confusion if more BSA high adventure articles are created. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 04:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this, but Rlevse has a good idea. --Naha|^(talk) 04:15, 8 February 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. —akghetto ^talk 09:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takfiri terrorists are extremist Islamist terrorists who believe that non-Muslims may be killed with impunity, as well as Muslims who disagree with them - POV, no way to measure, why is Mohammed Atta listed on the category but not the other 19 hijackers? Better to categorize terrorists by nationality, than by "This is their personal opinion" which we can't speak to with any authority. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, my nom Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 18:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since "Takfiri" appears to be a legitimate and politically important self-designation in a sub-branch of Sunni Islam[1] [2] [3], is your claim of POV based on the poorly written category description, or on the association of "Tafkiri" with "terrorist"? Deborah-jl _Talk 19:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Darwinek 19:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need to subdivided terrorists by degree of fanaticism. Piccadilly 13:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV.helohe (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 04:21, 12 February 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. —akghetto ^talk 09:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulated and redundant, as it duplicates Category:Russian Egyptologists. --Ghirla | talk 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Ghirla | talk 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ghirlandajo. Pavel Vozenilek 00:04, 14 February 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. —akghetto ^talk 08:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation should go and the new name should match those of the parent categories category:American culture and category:American society. Sumahoy 14:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 14:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Darwinek 17:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Valiantis 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose / Amendment Most of these cultural conventions apply to other countries, not just the US. The current and proposed naming are very exclusive. I propose Western cultural conventions instead. Waggers 14:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be a reason to remove some, but that category is legitimate. America and the West are not the same. Sumahoy 02:01, 14 February 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 fix capitalization to Category:WOSM member organization, no consensus on rename --Kbdank71 14:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of abbreviation and capitals in line with conventions. Rename CalJW 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose removal of abbreviation, but support removal of capitals. Categories of this length lack usability for both contributors and readers. Especially when coupled to the parallel Category:World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts member organizations (now also abbreviated and with caps) - there are about 32 double entries. --jergen 16:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Jergen, but do agree with lower case for "member" and "organization".Rlevse 17:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom. WOSM is not widely known whereas the words "Scout Movement" would be make it more recognisable. Green Giant 23:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but also support the lower case for "member" and "organization."--Naha|^(talk) 04:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and policy. Vegaswikian 20:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and policy. Sumahoy 02:02, 14 February 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 --Kbdank71 14:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a purpose to this category, I'm not getting it. It is a subcategory of Category:American people. If you don't know what states are in the Southern United States, you probably won't be looking for the people who come from those states. This overcategorization could lead to Category:People from Southern North Dakota and Category:Film directors from NATO member countries. Delete. -- Samuel Wantman 10:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC), withdrawn. Recategorized. -- Samuel Wantman 08:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is also in Category:Southern United States and if that exists it may as well be populated. Providing the subcategories aren't removed from category:American people by state this extra category does no harm. Sumahoy 14:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can agree to this if it is removed from Category:American people and thus only remains a subcategory of Category:Southern United States -- Samuel Wantman 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like that idea too. Keep, but remove from Category:American people so it's not a sibling of Category:American people by state ×Meegs 03:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as long as the only entries are the state subcats I don't see this as a problem. Vegaswikian 20:22, 6 February 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 --Kbdank71 14:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as equivalent to Category:Cold War guided missiles. Now depopulated. GCarty 09:20, 6 February 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. —akghetto ^talk 08:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black and Asian aren't even coterminous, what of a person with dark skin born and raised in Asia? Makes no sense when proper ethnic categories are available. 70.20.94.142 05:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonsense. Valiantis 15:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Green Giant 17:03, 9 February 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. —akghetto ^talk 09:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have both. They not only duplicate each other in purpose, but also in actual use. SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. CalJW 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A policy should be created concerning the listing of streams not named rivers on lists and categories of rivers. The reason this category was created, along with the page List of Pennsylvania streams, was because streams not named river were being deleted from the rivers list. If the streams list & categories are merged into rivers, then let's try to make sure that streams not named rivers are not deleted from them in the future. Gjs238 12:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - "river" should be a term meaning any natural waterway, not just one with "river" in the name. If that's not acceptable we should use another all-encompassing term, rather than arbitrarily split them up. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, stream is the all-encompassing term, not river, or even waterway, at least by Wikipedia definitions. I suppose one should consider what the intention was of those creating the river categories and lists. Did they intend them to be truly limited to rivers, or all-encompasing with every little creek, brook, run, lick, fork, etc. Gjs238 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. If a natural waterway is big enough to merit an article it is a river, at least informally. Piccadilly 13:29, 7 February 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. —akghetto ^talk 08:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upopulated since August 2005. Commons seems a more appropriate place for such a category. >>sparkit|TALK<< 00:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. CalJW 11:52, 6 February 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 —akghetto ^talk 08:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for fans of a Scottish football club. Contains a single entry, a vanity article for a Scottish ex-pat bar owner in provincial Japan (Colin Carmichael), and seems to have been created solely for the purpose of propping up the vanity article. Calton | Talk 03:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* My dear Calton. There are lots of Heart of Midlothian F.C. supporters in the world. So far there is indeed only entry, but many more will follow in good time, and we all know where you live. Tokyo!! Take care and Best Wishes, --Historian 08:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC) withdrawn, deleted by --Historian 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • ...and we all know where you live. Tokyo!! It's on my user page, so the point of that remark, Colin, was what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 20:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, my name is not Colin.--Historian 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's nice, Colin. So, again, the point of that remark was what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Not an important enough attribute for any famous people who may be relevant to warrant a category. CalJW 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and CalJW. Angus McLellan 20:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That's fine with me. --Historian 23:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nm --† Ðy§ep§ion † 17:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 04:22, 12 February 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know quite what to do with this, but it sucks. First, most of the entries are individuals, not organizations. So, either the content or the name ought to be changed. However, I think individuals is quite unwieldy, and will mostly end up being politicians (because that's who we would know about). Second, "and/or George Bush" is highly dubious. It suggests that many of these groups are opposed to Bush, when it's much more likely they profess only objection to the war. So, in all, I think this category ought to be Category:Veterans' organizations opposed to the Iraq war:, and it should be purged of individuals. At any rate the current category name is horrible and the content is mismatched to the name. Derex 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do change the name of the Category I don't know how to do that. change132.241.245.49 20:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• category is now being worked on User:Grazon 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change: I agree. I'd been removing individuals from this category in the process of filling the category "Anti-war people." Between me and Grazon the category is now clean. I don't believe it should be deleted - it's useful - but I agree "and/or George Bush" should be eliminated. As far as I know all of these organizations are opposed to Bush because they're opposed to the war. Kalkin 15:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename per Derex. Pepsidrinka 15:20, 8 February 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.