Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 8

< November 7	November 9 >

November 8

Category:National emblems of Argentina

Category:National emblems of the Republic of Ireland

Category:National emblems of Japan

Category:National emblems of the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to match the other subcategories of Category:National symbols by nationality. Metthurst 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Calsicol 13:55, 9 November 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 section.

Category:UK Discrimination law

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK Discrimination law to Category:Discrimination law in the United Kingdom

Rename, Expand abbreviaion, and United Kingdom is not an adjective so probably outside speedy renaming procedure. Tim! 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Landolitan 20:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the category is for legislation outlawing discrimination, shouldn't the cat be Category:Anti-discrimination law in the United Kingdom? Otto4711 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename: UK is a well-enough known abbreviation that it makes sense to keep the shorter name. In response to Otto4711, the relevant laws are not solely anti-discrimination, they also define areas where discrimination is permitted. The term "discrimination law" is widely-used in the field -- the title of government review currently underway. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:08, 12 November 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 section.

Category:Faculty of Furman University

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Furman University faculty, convention of Category:Faculty by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:23, 8 November 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 section.

Category:Female life peers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I'm not even going to bother trying on this one. Too many strikeouts, undoing of strikeouts, duplicate sections, ad hominem attacks, I'll be honest, I couldn't even follow what was going on. If someone else wants to try to find consensus in this, feel free to overrule me and good luck. --Kbdank71 17:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female life peers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is now two separate votes please place all votes after the subheadings below. Nonomy 02:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Delete An ever higher proportion of life peers are female and their gender is of little relevance to their work. Life peers are appointed (officially in any case) for their expertise in various areas of public life, and men and women have the same duties. Nonomy 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the nomination is good faith, then we should also upmerge all the entirely-male categories of peers, to Category:Peers. (comment by User:BrownHairedGirl) [See If the nomination is good faith, then we should also upmerge all the entirely-male categories of peers, to Category:Peers:

I assume good faith, and trust that the nominator will suport the deletion of these categories too. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Representaive peers were peers from Ireland and Scotland elected to sit in the House of Lords after the Acts of Union; they were all hereditary, and hence entirely male. Likewise, the perrs of England (i.e. pre-1707) were all male, as were the 1707-1801 Category:Peers of Great Britain. If I have missed any other all-male categories, I trust that soneone else ill add them to this CFD. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl's riduculous attempt to conflate this nomination with her nomination of some fundamentally different categories, which I have seperated out). For avoidance of doubt I am completely gender neutral and call of Category:Male life peers to be pre-emptively blocked. Nonomy 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I have reverted the splt, partly to avoid confusion, but also because you also removed from this CFD ALL of the contributions of those opposed to this CFD. As to gender neutrality requiring a mirror category of male life peers, read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations: "That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default". --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then let's have two complete sets of votes. At the moment I find it just about impossible to believe that you are acting in good faith. I will put you to the test by listing all the votes where I believe they belong. Nonomy 22:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{more abuse deleted} --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Calsicol 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) *Delete User:BrownHairedGirl hasn't disguised the role of this category as a piece of feminist campaigning very well. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutrality). Landolitan 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC) *Delete per Nom. Their sex is irrelevant. The comparable male category is indisputably Category:Male life peers. - Kittybrewster 20:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{undo strikeout of next vote} --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) *Strong keep: the nominator should have read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations, which is pertinent for several reasons, and should also have checked some figures.[reply]

- With one or two exceptions, there have been no female hereditary peers, so this category is effectively a cat for all female peers. It is not a "current peers" category.
- Women form a small minority of current life peers, and in any case this is a historical category: it includes both past and present life peers. It woukd also have helped for the nominator to have checked some figures.
- There has been a House of Lords for nearly 1000 years, but women have been in a tiny minority until the last few decades, and are still outnumbered by 4.5:1.The House of Lords has changed in the last few decades from being entirely male, but as of this month women still number only 142 out of 609 peers (i.e. 22%).
- The nominator's argument that peers are appointed solely on their merits is confounded by the massive gender bias in such appointments: the current balance of life peers is 469 men to 139 women. Whilst a peer's duties are theoretically gender-blind, to suggest that it has "little relevance to their work" is a very controversial POV (many issues such as childcare receive much more attention from omen politicians than from men).
- All the major political parties are working hard to increase the nunber of women in Parliament, so they clearly disagree with the premise of this nomination. It would be an outrageous act of sexism for wikipedia to delete the category because a few editors reject the assesment of all the major poiltical parties in the UK: that gender does matter in politics, and that the current gender imbalance is so thoroughly unacceptable and so deeply ingrained that they have to change their rules and/or procedures to try to achieve some balance.
- Please note too that the major commerical guide to parliament, VacherDods, categorises peers by gender. So does parliament.
- Some figures for comparison:
  - Category:Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom : 233, all male
  - Category:Earls in the Peerage of Great Britain : 175 , all male
  - Category:Earls in the Peerage of England : 196, all male
  - Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom : 564, all male
  - Category:Barons in the Peerage of England : 219, all male
  - Category:Barons in the Peerage of Great Britain : 72, all male
  - Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom : 53, all male
  - Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Great Britain : 69, all male
  - Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England : 212, all male
  - Category:British viscounts (excl Ireland and Scotland}} : 246
  - Total: 2039 articles so far in all-male ctaegories
  - Category:Female life peers: 133
I have therefore nominated for upmerging all the all-male categories: let's see whether this gender-blindness cuts both ways.

--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I disagree - Category:Barons in the Peerage of England and numerous other categories include numerous women. - Kittybrewster 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{undo strikeout of next vote} --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) *Keep, don't merge, don't delete, do read WP:POINT. Fys. Ta fys aym. 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC) *KEEP of course, and look, some of the the usual suspects are here calling for the delete despite the fact that consensus on the issue of categorizing female politicians by sex has been reached. I do try to assume good faith in circumstances like this of course, but it gets more and more difficult when there are these constant backdoor attempts to get around consensus through the CfD process. Otto4711 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC) {undo strikeout of next vote} --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) *Keep - of course - useful analysis Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

This is a cynical use of bad faith tactics BrownHairedGirl must know perfectly well that these additional categories are not comparable. It appears that her only concern is to get her own way. I have separately these completely non-analogous cateogories. These peers by degree categories are in any case not single sex as they can be used for female peers in their own right. (Queen Victoria thought a female who held a dukedom in her own right was a duke, not a duchess.)Nonomy 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the peers by degree categories of course. The comparable male category is indisputably Category:Male life peers. I have separated the two discussions as BrownHairedGirl's manipulativeness is totally out of order. Nonomy 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Their sex is irrelevant. The comparable male category is indisputably Category:Male life peers. - Kittybrewster 20:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It is essential to have separate categories for each of the five tiers of the peerage and they have been around for a long time. Carina22 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism: I just reverted a second attempt to remove ALL the oppose votes from this CFD. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- THE VANDALISM IS BY --BrownHairedGirl WHO IS REPEATEDLY ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT Category:Female life peers BEING DISCUSSED ON ITS OWN MERITS. Nonomy 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you seriously trying to argue that removing from all a CFD ALL of the oppose votes is not vandalism? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not delete a single voted. You VANDALISED the debate purely to get your own way by conflating irrelevant issues. I will now attempt to repair the damage that YOU did in BAD FAITH by restoring two complete sets of votes. Nonomy 22:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You removed the keep votes to a separate CFD, reatining only delete votes --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This vote is broken and should be closed, since it has merged two nominations for some time and some User hadn't known what they voted for. If both nominations are meant seriously, keep it splited please. ~~ Phoe _talk 22:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
- I think I had fixed it, though you have reintroduced confusion by cancelling out my strikethroughs. The reality is that there is only one category under debate. I don't think BrownHairedGirl really wants to delete the categories for different levels of the peerage and I don't see who else would as they are such obvious basic long-established categories. It was purely a spoiling tactic. If this debate is not allowed to run its course she will have succeeded in stopping a vote because she didn't like the potential outcome and that is not a precedent that we can afford to allow surely? Nonomy 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to keep both them and the female-only category. But if you want to delete a female-only category, then it's only balanced to delete categories which subdivide peers into groups to which only men belong (save for a few historical exceptions). Either classify them all as peers, or retain the female-only category as per existing guidelines.
  - THe male-only categories are of no greater enclopdic interst than the female-only ones, and the degrees of rank do not significantly affect a peer's role in the House of Lords. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but I wanted to fix my spelling only (knoww to known). It seems we have saved in the same time. ~~ Phoe _talk 22:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY VOTES HERE. PLEASE VOTE IN THE TWO SECTIONS BELOW.

Votes on Category:Female life peers

This category shoud be considered with Category:Suo jure peeresses, another category of female peers. They should be be either kept or deleted together (thanks to Kittybrewster for pointing me in the direction of this category, which is effectively a category of female hereditaries). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete me as per nom. Nonomy 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if you are going to split a vote, don't split out the opposing arguments: reinstated below BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least I didn't vote twice as I just noted you did. I have deleted the copy of your vote I originally copied in for you. Nonomy 02:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: the nominator should have read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations, which is pertinent for several reasons, and should also have checked some figures.
- With one or two exceptions, there have been no female hereditary peers, so this category is effectively a cat for all female peers. It is not a "current peers" category.
- Women form a small minority of current life peers, and in any case this is a historical category: it includes both past and present life peers. It woukd also have helped for the nominator to have checked some figures.
- There has been a House of Lords for nearly 1000 years, but women have been in a tiny minority until the last few decades, and are still outnumbered by 4.5:1.The House of Lords has changed in the last few decades from being entirely male, but as of this month women still number only 142 out of 609 peers (i.e. 22%).
- The nominator's argument that peers are appointed solely on their merits is confounded by the massive gender bias in such appointments: the current balance of life peers is 469 men to 139 women. Whilst a peer's duties are theoretically gender-blind, to suggest that it has "little relevance to their work" is a very controversial POV (many issues such as childcare receive much more attention from omen politicians than from men).
- All the major political parties are working hard to increase the nunber of women in Parliament, so they clearly disagree with the premise of this nomination. It would be an outrageous act of sexism for wikipedia to delete the category because a few editors reject the assesment of all the major poiltical parties in the UK: that gender does matter in politics, and that the current gender imbalance is so thoroughly unacceptable and so deeply ingrained that they have to change their rules and/or procedures to try to achieve some balance.
- Please note too that the major commerical guide to parliament, VacherDods, categorises peers by gender. So does parliament.
- Some figures for comparison:
  - Category:Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom : 233, all male
  - Category:Earls in the Peerage of Great Britain : 175 , all male
  - Category:Earls in the Peerage of England : 196, all male
  - Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom : 564, all male
  - Category:Barons in the Peerage of England : 219, all male
  - Category:Barons in the Peerage of Great Britain : 72, all male
  - Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom : 53, all male
  - Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Great Britain : 69, all male
  - Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England : 212, all male
  - Category:British viscounts (excl Ireland and Scotland}} : 246
  - Total: 2039 articles so far in all-male ctaegories
  - Category:Female life peers: 133
I have therefore nominated for upmerging all the all-male categories: let's see whether this gender-blindness cuts both ways.

--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Wrong. Many women are included on these lists. They are not all male lists. - Kittybrewster 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question several hundred hereditary perrs now elect 92 of their number to sit in the Lords. How many of those 92 are male, and how many are female? How many of the hundreds are male, and how many are female? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Answer'. This is not painting by numbers. Women get a vote, just as men do - in elections and on constituency selection panels. In order to rebalance parliament, they are being propelled towards choosing from women only lists, not least because women tend to prefer being represented by men, the result of which is a gender non-neutral parliamentary perspective. - We are now getting women preferred over equally capable men which may well be short-term preferable. Meanwhile let's not create waves by drawing attention to an anomaly that can no longer be justified or supported as seen through our modern eyes. Carina22 hit the nail squarely on the head. - Kittybrewster 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't cat by gender here. >Radiant< 09:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong: see existing guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think that section is a clear cut endorsement of your point of view you need to read it again. It is simply a few gently worded potential qualifications to the general prinipal which [[User_talk:Radiant!|>Radiant<] is perfectly entitled to invoke. Cloachland 02:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Wrong The guideline is remarkably specific: "a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default." Exactly the same applies to peers, historically, the vast majority have been male. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Answer. That is an argument that allows female heads of government but does not embrace peers. Many peers are selected from the ranks of those in the House of Commons which is sexually unbalanced. That is being addresssed by positive discrimination in some areas. But we should take it as read that women are not a special category. - Kittybrewster 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrong again. The only peers which are elected are the 92 elected by the hereditary peers: the House of Commons does not elect any peers, though appointed peers may be drawn from the ranks of former MPs. There's no need to take my word that women peers are a special category: Parliament itself categorises peers by gender: see Analysis of Composition in the House of Lords and Members of Parliament by Gender: Numbers.
        The Parliament website also lists peers by party (e.g. Conservative peers), but does not include individual biography pages: those are all on the VacherDods website, which categorises peers by gender: see peers by gender.
        So we don't need to take anything as read: it's there, clearly set out, in the ways which Parliament analyses itself. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Right. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categorization of people. >Radiant< 09:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Still wrong Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations is a more specific guideline than that one. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Calsicol 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:BrownHairedGirl hasn't disguised the role of this category as a piece of feminist campaigning very well. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutrality). Landolitan 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: exactly. That's why the guidelines specifically allow gendered categs where they are of special encyclopedic interest: see existing guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Other considerations seems to argue strongly against you on this, BHG. We should not be creating a category for women, nor picking on characters who were historically predominantly male. - Kittybrewster 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Kittybrewster, that's an axiom, not a reason. "We should not", you say, but why? The criteria in the guidelines are simple: special encyclopedic relevance. Why do you think that it is of special encyclopedic relevance to note all the nuances of characters who were historicaly male, but not to note those who were female? Are women inherently non-notable? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Answer. On that ground you could argue for a category for red-headed peers. If a woman achieved something noteable in her own right she should obviously be in the wiki. If women found it very hard to do so then that should be in the wiki (undoubted historic sexisism). But historically men often ahieved by inheriting money and buying commissions or livings - and failed in their purchased calling - but the fact that they occupied that position made them noteable, not the fact that they were male. - Kittybrewster 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrong: Parliamaent itself categorises women peers, because it has decied that this is relevant to its work. If and when Parlaiment also categorises red-headed peers, then it would be POV for wikipedia not to do so too, but until then it woud be POV for wikipdia to decide that as a sufficiently notable fact to merit categorisation. Note too that Parliament itself does not categorise peers by rank: all hereditaries are lumped together. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. Their sex is irrelevant. The comparable male category is indisputably Category:Male life peers. - Kittybrewster 20:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so exactly how many female hereditary peers are there right now? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Totally different issue. - Kittybrewster 01:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment not so different at all. The hereditary categories subdivide peers by creating a series of wholly (or overwhelmingly) male groupings, from which women are excluded by definition.

Answer. Not so, e.g. Myrtle Robertson, 11th Baroness Wharton and Cherry Drummond, 16th Baroness Strange were both women elected by their peers. - Kittybrewster 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 78 of them in them in history according to Category:Suo jure peeresses, out of more thna 2,000 male hereditaries, which proves my point that these are the exceptions which prive the rule. In any case, Category:Suo jure peeresses is another gendered category ofv women peers, so shoud be added to he nomination. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Response. There are many suo jure peeresses who don't yet have a wiki entry. E.g. 11th Countess of Kintore. It would be great if they were to be given an article rather than count merely those for whom an article has been created. "78 in history" is a gross distortion of reality, as is "n Barons - all male". - Kittybrewster 21:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response same goes for the overall tally of 2,000, above. All these categories are incomplete, but I don't see much reason to assume that one is significantly more incomplete than the other, so the ratios still make a reasonable guess. The situation remains that excepot for a few specially provided peerages, descent is through the male line. If that isn't a gendered category, I don't know what is. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't merge, don't delete, do read WP:POINT. Fys. Ta fys aym. 16:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your point is what? - Kittybrewster 01:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that nominating a category for deletion on a "tit for tat" basis, which you don't actually want deleted, is an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Fys. Ta fys aym. 16:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP of course, and look, some of the the usual suspects are here calling for the delete despite the fact that consensus on the issue of categorizing female politicians by sex has been reached. I do try to assume good faith in circumstances like this of course, but it gets more and more difficult when there are these constant backdoor attempts to get around consensus through the CfD process. Otto4711 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of course - useful analysis Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to prepare a paper making a case from a feminist point of view perhaps, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be adapted to the needs of any particular lobby group. Nonomy 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment wikipedia exists to record things of encyclopedic interest. The gender ratios in in parliament are a) a very simple statistical fact b) problematised by all three major political parties, not just the sectional concern of a lobby group. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Modern women don't need to be patronised by having attention drawn to our gender whenever we achieve anything, thank you very much. Carina22
Delete per WP:NPOV and Carina22.Abstain, this has gotten silly, good luck to the closing admin who has to piece this all together. renominate and next time NO EDITING OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS OR VOTES. L0b0t 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carina22 (what exactly is a "life peer" anyway...) Danny Lilithborne 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I politely suggest that you find out what it is you're voting to delete?
  - Comment I just did, and my vote stands, per Carina22 once again. Danny Lilithborne 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fys. Mackensen (talk)
Keep - It's encyclopedic information. Irrespective of other categories, it stands on its own merits IMO. Anchoress 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't categorise by gender. Wilchett 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gender categorization is fine when there has been significant discrimination against that group- no one can doubt that women have been discriminated against in this arena. Arniep 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arniep's comment shows exactly why this should be deleted. He is advocating an editorial stance and Wikipedia is not supposed to have one. Cloachland 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Arniep is noting that something happened. Do you really disagree that women have historically made up only a tiny proportion of parliamentarians, because the rules kept them out? Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is editorialising, but recording that it has happened is as much matter of historical fact as recording which party labels a candidate took at election time. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. Cloachland is absolutely spot on. By all means record the fact BHG sets forth but not by intoducing an absurd category. If I want to look up a peer I expect to do so under Cat: Life Peers. - Kittybrewster 09:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response and indeed you can do so, because female life peers are dual-categorised per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations. However, if this catehory goes, then there will be no category for looking up female peers. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The main advocate of this category has confirmed that it is not neutral and not intended to be neutral. Merchbow 09:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is indeed neutral: it does not rely on any POV assessment, and it is more durable than classification by rank or by party. It records a fact also recorded by parliament in all its lists: Merchbow is basically saying that Parliament itself is not neutral in how it categorises MPs and peers. [1], [2]. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not categorise by gender. Lankiveil 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - as the "creator" of both categories, I guess I should say something here. My main intention for creating the categories was, as has been pointed out, that women have made up far less of the HoL than men have (and being peeresses in their own right) and I felt they should have their own category. Still, if the 'pedia wants to stop categorising by gender, then I guess they have to go. Although if that's the case, then similarly get rid of Category:Women and its sub-cats altogether. If not suited for a category though, Female life peers and Suo jure peeresses should still have their place here (even if only as articles) as I'm sure there are people who would like to see them listed on their own as well as amongst the categories for dukes, marquesses etc. We cannot hide from the fact that there are readers of this encyclopaedia who prefer, or at least are interested, to see women in their own place (however derogatory that may sound, it isn't) due to the uncommon place of their roles in society, eg. Category:Women in war etc. Craigy (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes on the additional categories nominated by User:BrownHairedGirl

Category:British barons
Category:British earls
Category:British marquesses
Category:British viscounts
Category:British dukes
Category:Peers of England
Category:Peers of Great Britain
Category:Representative peers
Category:Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom : 233, all male
Category:Earls in the Peerage of Great Britain : 175 , all male
Category:Earls in the Peerage of England : 196, all male
Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom : 564, all male
Category:Barons in the Peerage of England : 219, all male
Category:Barons in the Peerage of Great Britain : 72, all male
Category:Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom : 53, all male
Category:Dukes in the Peerage of Great Britain : 69, all male
Category:Dukes in the Peerage of England : 212, all male
Category:British viscounts (excl Ireland and Scotland}} : 246

Delete unless the female category is kept, as per existing guidelines. These are all-male categories, because they record all-male grades of peerBrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How can I take this nomination as being made in good faith? It is the first time I have had cause to question BHG on such a ground. - Kittybrewster 01:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has been pointed out that these are not all male categories, but BrownHairedGirl persists with saying they are! Nonomy 02:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There have been a very few historical exceptions, but as the saying goes, those are exceptions which prove the rule. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You set out a falsehood and justify it with a cliché? And you are generally so balanced. I am actively shocked by this bad faith nomination and your failure to withdraw it. - Kittybrewster 08:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I am bemused by the efforts to defend thse categories as ungendered. These hereditary peers categories mark multiple grades of peer, whose distinguishing characteristic is that except for a few specially-created exceptions, inheritance is restricted to men. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is essential to have separate categories for each of the five tiers of the peerage and they have been around for a long time. Carina22 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the peers by degree categories. The nomination is absurd. - Kittybrewster 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This vote is broken and should be closed, since it has merged two nominations for some time and some User hadn't known what they voted for. If both nominations are meant seriously, keep it splited please. ~~ Phoe _talk 22:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
- See my reply above Nonomy 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, exercise in WP:POINT. (Incidentally, a number of baronies in the Peerage of England, as baronies by writ, can be held suo jure by females, as well as several earldoms, now all I think extinct, such as Warwick, Kent and Ulster; however, they all seem to be lumped into Category:Suo jure peeresses. Should they be cross-listed in the above categories?) Choess 23:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment. Not all extinct - eg Kintore. - Kittybrewster 08:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious bad faith nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fys. I like a good POINT violation as much as the next sysop, but decline to participate. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be nice? --Masamage 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These nominations breach WP:POINT Cloachland 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And how! - Kittybrewster 08:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why women can't be put in these categories, just as we have women in "Actors" and the like. Lankiveil 02:22, 12 November 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 section.

Category:American punk musicians

Category:American punk musicians by instrument

Category:Canadian punk musicians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 14:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above three categories do not match the top category (Category:Punk rock musicians) the article punk rock or the other subcategories.

Rename all by adding the world "rock":
Category:American punk musicians merge to Category:American punk rock musicians
Category:American punk musicians by instrument to Category:American punk rock musicians by instrument
Category:Canadian punk musicians to Category:Canadian punk rock musicians

Piccadilly 16:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all for consistency within Category:Punk rock musicians by nationality and between punk rock articles on WP. Prolog 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per above. Cbrown1023 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all for consistency. Landolitan 20:33, 9 November 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 section.

Category:People from Richmond

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Richmond upon Thames to match Richmond upon Thames per June 21 discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Piccadilly 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. There's more than one Richmond. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:20, 12 November 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 section.

Category:People from Kingston

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Kingston upon Thames, to match Kingston upon Thames per June 21 discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Piccadilly 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 03:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. There's more than one Kingston. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:21, 12 November 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 section.

Category:Turkish saints

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, All of these saints are Byzantine saints, the name Turkish saints is incorrect. Even a category Saints from the territory of modern Turkey would be redundant.--Eupator 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, i.e. move all to Category:Byzantine saints. Strictly speaking, we may be dealing here with saints who are even older than what is conventionally called "Byzantium" in the political sense (pre-4th century AD), but their Late Roman cultural sphere is at least closely continuous with that of Byzantium (same culture, same ethnicities, same languages, same empire), so that any element of anachronism is far less severe if we put them there than if we put them into "Turkish". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. (i have no idea what the creator had in mind...). Hectorian 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. All these saints predate the Turkish conquest of Anatolia and can't be said to be Turkish by any reasonable definition. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest keep. I'm the creator. I created it specifically because Category:Byzantine saints isn't appropriate for all the people therein (I created that category too, and most of the others in Category:Saints by country). According to my dictionary "Turkish" refers to someone from Turkey (Kurds, Jews, Greeks, etc), as well as someone who is ethnically a Turk. I created this cat for consistancy with the other subcats there; all the others are used for both saints from that modern country, and from the territory that existed there beforehad (for instance Gaulish saints go in Category:French saints; Dalmatian saints go in Category:Croatian saints, saints from the colonial US go in category:American saints; etc.). I knew this was going to throw some people for a loop, and I brought it up at the Saints wikiproject, but no one commented. Initially I created the Byzantine saints category to fit all those saints who lived in what is now Turkey (and it is a lot of them), but that was unsatisfactory for several reasons. First, it should also include individuals from what is now Greece, which would be redundant; additionally the Byzantine Empire included parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe. What we really needed was a category specifically for those people who lived specifically in the area we now call Turkey. Finally, and most importantly, many of those people lived before or after the Byzantine Empire. So I finally settled on just being consistant with the other Saints by country cats, and explaining who should be included in the summary at the top.

My final point is, whether or not you agree that all those people now in the category, there are in fact a few saints from the modern Turkey (mostly Eastern Orthodox; there's still a Patriarch of Constantinople, remember). It would be inappropriate to delete the category because we can't agree on who else should go in there with them. So whatever is done, do not delete the category.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That other categorizations are wrong seems to me a very inappropriate criterion for categorizing other articles wrongly. If Dalmatian and Gaulish saints are incorrectly made Croatian and French, then that should be fixed. But these are different situations. We do not have modern descendants of the ethnic groups affected who would object strongly, as ethnic Greeks would to being labeled as Turks. (Residents of the American colonies were Americans regardless.)

However, Category:Byzantine saints is plainly inappropriate too. Fact is, nationality is a slippery concept in ancient times before the rise of the modern nation-state, and especially within the territory of a multi-ethnic, multi-national empire such as the Roman Empire. For antiquity, it might therefore be better to identify by region rather than nationality. I suggest Category:Anatolian saints for those resident in Anatolia but prior to the misnamed "Byzantine Empire".

I believe there may be a few Turkish saints, martyrs of their post-WWI ethnic cleansings perhaps, but unless we actually have any articles on them my delete vote above stands. Those saints I know of in Turkish territory were not residents of modern Turkey, but of the Ottoman Empire. If we currently have any articles that fit, I would therefore change my vote to Rename Category:Ottoman saints. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Renaming to Anatolian saints is acceptable to me for most of the articles currently there (that's basically what I was going for anyway, though part of Constantinople is in European Turkey and not Anatolia, I think this is probably minor). The Ottoman category would face the same problem Byzantine saints has (or Ancient Roman saints for that matter) in that the Ottoman Empire was really frickin' big; at any rate Ottoman saints from what is now Turkey could just go in the Anatolian saints cat with the others. I would like to know, however, what we do for other categories about people from the country of Turkey. Are they generally sorted by ethnic group rather than nationality?--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. On reflection, I think what we really need to do is to look at each case individually and categorize them according to whatever consensus we can find in reliable sources. For example, I don't think you'll find anything at all in any acceptable source that says St. Basil of Caesarea (for instance) was "Turkish". I could say the same about hundreds of early saints from Asia Minor, not even excluding St. Paul. (Born in Tarsus, now in Turkey.)

On the other hand, look at St. Irenaeus of Lyons. He's categorized under both Category:French saints -- which is where Lugdnunm (Lyons) is now located -- and under Category:Greek saints as he was born in Smyrna -- now İzmir, and in Turkey, but a Ionian city that had been primarily Greek for a thousand years before he was born. As bishop of Lyons he probably spoke the local Gaulish Latin dialect in daily speech; certainly he wrote in Greek. Nothing French there, except that France is certainly proud to consider him her own. Even though "French saint" isn't particularly applicable, it seems to me that there's nothing wrong with placing him there. Does it seem even remotely useful to categorize him as Turkish ?

Or as long as we're on French saints, look at St. Denis. Born in Italy (same then as now, understood broadly as the region and not the modern nation-state) he was bishop of the Parisii, a Gaulish tribe that lived at Lutetia, which later was renamed for its inhabitants. He's categorized as a French saint, but to not do so would make no sense as he's considered the patron saint of France, a polity not to be founded until the invasions of the Germanic Frankish tribes. One could justify calling him an Italian saint, but it doesn't seem to make sense at first glance.

So I think it sometimes makes sense to categorize historical saints according to the political body now occupying the territory where they once lived, but not always. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Csernica. I have not much of a problem with anachronistic categorizations in cases where there is at least a strong element of cultural continuity between the historical political/ethnic/geographic units and the modern ones. With Anatolia/Turkey, this element is missing. As for parallels in other categories: Look at Category:Turkish people and its subcats, I don't see any parallel case there. We certainly don't have Homer under Category:Turkish poets. As for Cuchullain's insistence on having a category corresponding to the geographical unit that is today Turkey: well, why should we need one? I don't really see why "people from the territory that is today Turkey", or "people from in and around Anatolia" would be a particularly interesting categorisation for people from late antiquity anyway. But I won't strongly object if people really want Category:Saints from Anatolia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Turkish saints would, to me anyway, mean people such as Hazrat Shah Jalal (assuming that he was born in Konya). That means it is ambiguous, and that's not on. Byzantine saints seems preferrable to Anatolian saints. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let the WikiProject sort it out without the threat of an imminent deletion. --evrik ^(talk) 15:00, 9 November 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 section.

Category:Vijay's films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and permanently block Category:Films by actor. Kill it now, before it spreads. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and permanently block both this category and Category:Films by actor. Block any other such category on first creation as the principle that such categories are not desirable is well established. Piccadilly 16:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Prolog 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piccadilly. >Radiant< 09:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piccadilly. Merchbow 09:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it There is no substantial rationale given for removing this category. Why should Films by actor not be categorized when there are novels by writers categorized?Balajiviswanathan 02:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because films can feature dozens of actors, it should just be listed in the Joseph Vijay article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be moved to list.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pathogenic.--Mike Selinker 18:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary and imprecise (Vijay who?) category. Lankiveil 02:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and per Piccadilly. Postdlf 21:54, 13 November 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 section.

Category:Hillsong - Live praise & worship albums

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep since there are over 50 Hillsong albums altogether, and this appears to be a well defined series. the wub "?!" 14:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Hillsong albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this category. It is for all of Hillsong's albums in the Live Praise and Worship Series, and that is how it is catergorised on their website [3] Mover85 05:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The super-category is being split into sub-categories including this one, which will contain several entries. Marky1981 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Hillsong albums, as per User:ProveIt. Lankiveil 02:19, 12 November 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 section.

Category:Television shows in the Philippines

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 13:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television shows in the Philippines into Category:Filipino television series

Merge, multiple categories of the same topic, and to conform with conventions of Category:Television series by country. Tinlinkin 14:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Prolog 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, should be for shows made there, as opposed to shows shown there. >Radiant< 09:44, 9 November 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 section.

Category:Catalan-speaking countries

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catalan-speaking countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. During a previous debate it was decided to delete Category:Romanian-speaking countries, partly since it only contained (and only could contain) two articles. A number of editors pointed out Category:Catalan-speaking countries only has one entry, so this should also be deleted. the wub "?!" 10:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Piccadilly 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. By the way, wouldn't Spain fit in the description too? -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 19:12, 11 November 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 section.

Category:Heteroscelus

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Heteroscelus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Genus has been merged into Tringa, see there. Dysmorodrepanis 04:11, 8 November 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 section.

Category:World of Warcraft classes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this will be controversial but I an not sure it could fit speedy delete. This category did have articles in it a long time ago but they were all merged into a single article. So the category does't make sense anymore. Delete -- lucasbfr ^talk 03:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need for this category. Prolog 22:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this all a single article now. L0b0t 23:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Doczilla 07:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merchbow 09:28, 10 November 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 section.

Category:Things named for Magellan

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fun and interesting, but still trivia, should be a list in the Ferdinand Magellan article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a list at Magellan. -- Donald Albury 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No separate list is needed. Piccadilly 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. Doczilla 07:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trvia. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:22, 12 November 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 section.