Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 26

< September 25	September 27 >

September 26

Category:Minor solar system planets

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 --Kbdank71 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is a duplicate of Category:Minor planets — 132.205.44.134 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we will not have the technology to detect minor planets outside the solar system within lifetimes. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Minor solar system planets into Category:Minor planets. Deletion of Category:Minor solar system planets would also be satisfactory. George J. Bendo 09:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there are no known extrasolar minor planets to contrast with. This is a naturally empty category.RandomCritic 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the stipulation that such categories can be recreated should there become a need for disambiguation from extrasolar planets. - jc37 07:47, 29 September 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.

Category:Solar system planets

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Solar system planets into Category:Planets of the solar system

"solar system planets" is a newly created duplicate. — 132.205.44.134 23:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested in the nomination. George J. Bendo 09:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mrwuggs deleted the CFM tag from this category. 70.51.11.250 06:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom.RandomCritic 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. - jc37 07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. / GilliamJF 18:21, 30 September 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.

Category:Dwarf planets of the solar system

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, empty --Kbdank71 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

creator blanked category — 132.205.44.134 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merging them right now. Mrwuggs 19:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: someone seems to have deleted the CFD tag. 70.51.11.250 06:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this category is redundant. George J. Bendo 19:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to category:Dwarf planets (as has apparently already happened?) - jc37 07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doczilla 06:06, 1 October 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.

Category:Solar system astronomical objects

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, empty --Kbdank71 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is unnecessary — 132.205.44.134 23:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, unneeded subcategorization of Category:Solar system, which contain mostly celestial bodies already. It is also badly named, if kept it should be called Category:Astronomical objects of the Solar System 70.51.11.250 13:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Solar system RandomCritic 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if this was an attempt at an intersection of category:Solar system and category:Astronomical objects? - jc37 07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is that necessary? Solar System exists under Astronomical Objects, as part of the planetary systems heirarchy. 132.205.45.206 01:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Solar system, it is extraneous. Abyssoft 19:49, 30 September 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.

Category:Natural satellites

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural satellites into Category:Moons

Original name of category is common name — 132.205.44.134 23:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a natural satellte can be something other than a moon, such as a planet (natural satellite of a star), a star, a satellite galaxy, etc. 70.51.11.250 13:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plese note that the creator of this new category ignored a previous CFD vote where the name was to be kept at "Moons" (Category_talk:Moons). 70.51.11.250 13:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_17#Natural_satellites

Vote change to Speedy delete/merge because of ignored consensus reached only two months ago. 70.51.11.250 13:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Either name is fine, but Category:Moons has priority RandomCritic 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this was already debated, and the cunsensus was to use Category:Moons. Mrwuggs, the creator of the new Category:Natural satellites, has ignored the previous debate in favor of his own point of view. George J. Bendo 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I think the plural "moons" is enough disambiguation between the generic and Earth's moon.

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.

Category:Minor extrasolar planets

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 --Kbdank71 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will not be used for decades, and it is misnamed, "extrasolar minor planets" would be correct, and "minor planet" may be deprecated — 132.205.44.134 22:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, no such objects have been identified, and the detection of such objects may take decades. George J. Bendo 09:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An otiose and naturally empty category.RandomCritic 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the stipulation that extrasolar categories can be recreated should such planets need categorisation. - jc37 07:47, 29 September 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.

Category:Hypothetical minor solar system planets

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, empty --Kbdank71 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate of category:Hypothetical solar system minor planets — 132.205.44.134 23:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into category:Hypothetical solar system minor planets. George J. Bendo 09:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Mrwuggs deleted the CFM tag from this category. 70.51.11.250 06:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this category is too small to be useful. RandomCritic 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system. (I'm suggesting this for all the hypothetical solar system planetary bodies.) - jc37 07:47, 29 September 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.

Category:Hypothetical minor extrasolar planets

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 --Kbdank71 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the necessity in this — 132.205.44.134 23:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No one has published information on such objects, nor can I conceive of anyone doing so. George J. Bendo 09:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An otiose and naturally empty category.RandomCritic 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the stipulation that extrasolar categories can be recreated should such planets need categorisation. - jc37 07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unneeded at this time, as we currently lack the ability to detect these bodies. However, should future technology permit and subsequent discoveries occur, be confirmed, and receive publication, this category should then be restored. Abyssoft 19:45, 30 September 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.

Category:Hypothetical Solar System planets

Category:Hypothetical solar system minor planets

Category:Hypothetical solar system natural satellites

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/merge to Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system --Kbdank71 15:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hypothetical Solar System planets to Category:Hypothetical planets of the Solar system

Category:Hypothetical solar system minor planets to Category:Hypothetical minor planets of the Solar system

or merge with Category:Hypothetical Solar System planets/Category:Hypothetical planets of the Solar system

Category:Hypothetical solar system natural satellites to Category:Hypothetical natural satellites within the Solar system

(NB "within the Solar system" as I assume these satellites not imagined to orbit the Solar system...?)

Rename (/merge) all as nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge all per nom.
Comment ("of"... let's hear it for the genetive case : ) - jc37 04:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have amended "in" to "within"! Smile, David Kernow (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

roflmao : ) - jc37 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, now that I have the laughter out of my system.. I think "of" is likely better, with "of" meaning "belonging to" in this case (hence my genitive case comment above : )
- of Old Sol's system.
- of the solar system
  - Actually, I prefer "within" in Category:Hypothetical natural satellites within the Solar system for the rationale given above; it's possible (probable?) that there are bodies orbiting the Solar system. Yours, David (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I also don't think that we should capitalise "solar" in this case.~~ Changed my mind after looking at Solar system (see first note). Sounds like proper noun usage to me. Preferring: "...of the Solar System". - jc37 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding prepositions and things is confusing. Everything is fine the way it is. If it were changed one would have to change the names of tons of other categorys like Solar system planets, etc. Mrwuggs 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, "a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step" (with apologies for misquoting in your general direction!) Smile, David Kernow (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User Mrwuggs has been deleting the CFM/CFR/CFD templates from these categories. 70.51.11.250 07:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, buy for Category:Hypothetical solar system natural satellites, rename to Category:Hypothetical moons of the solar system, per previousl CFD on Category:moons back in July 2006 that said that the categoies should be called moons. Also, planets are natural satellites of the Sun 70.51.11.250 13:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system, if used (as below)*RandomCritic 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system. (I'm suggesting this for all the hypothetical solar system planetary bodies.) - jc37 07:47, 29 September 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.

Category:Hypothetical solar system bodies

Category:Hypothetical solar system astronomical objects

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/merge to Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system --Kbdank71 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [Category:Hypothetical solar system bodies], redundant and no longer in use. All articles now under Category:Hypothetical solar system astronomical objects. Mrwuggs 02:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, use [Category:Hypothetical solar system bodies]. The new category is unwieldy. 70.51.11.116 03:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system. (The three adjectivals before "objects" in the alternative category too unwieldy. Have tagged and added it above.) David Kernow (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per David Kernow ("of" : )- jc37 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per David Kernow. 132.205.44.134 01:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system. (I'm suggesting this for all the hypothetical solar system planetary bodies.) - jc37 07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you missed one? - Category:Hypothetical solar system stars : ) - jc37 07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment you would do the honors? 132.205.45.206 01:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Hypothetical bodies of the solar system RandomCritic 15:49, 30 September 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.

Category:Armageddon

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 --Kbdank71 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Very little in +cat, we already have Category:Human extinction and Category:Eschatology seems to be duplicating. MapleTree 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; looking at the article for Armageddon there are no potential members that would not be more appropriately listed directly in Category:Eschatology. -choster 13:28, 27 September 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.

Category:Causes of extinction

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 --Kbdank71 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Very few entries in +cat and not needed. MapleTree 22:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Peta 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 06:05, 1 October 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.

Category:Natives of Bradford

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natives of Bradford to Category:People from Bradford

Rename. To be consistent with other similar categories. -- Necrothesp 21:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per previous discussions/consistency. --musicpvm 07:09, 27 September 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.

Category:Metrology

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Measurement. "Metrology" is the science of measurement. We don't have a distinction between e.g. "physics" and "the science of physics". It's more useful to sort articles using the combination of subcategories of these two categories, than trying to make any sort of distinction between them. -- Beland 21:16, 26 September 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.

Category:Tanakh prophets

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tanakh prophets into Category:Jewish prophets

Merge – as far as I know, the only recognized Jewish prophets appear in the Tanakh. "Jewish prophets" would probably be the better-understood term. Eliyak T·C 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to category:Biblical Prophets. There are likely more Jewish prophets than ones just listed in the bible. See also: Nevi'im, for further information about the prophets. (Not suggesting calling the category "Nevi'im", because "prophet" is the commonly known name.) - jc37 21:35, 26 September 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.

Category:Gay sports groups

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, the only article was Volleyball, and that's not a "gay sport" --Kbdank71 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay sports groups into Category:LGBT athletic organizations

Merge, as "gay sports groups only has one entry; the rest are external links. GilliamJF 21:02, 26 September 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.

Category:Association of Alternative Newsweeklies

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 --Kbdank71 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Almost unused except for the namesake article and Austin Chronicle, which is already in the parent category Category:Alternative weekly newspapers. Seems too specific when we already have the parent category. -- nae'blis 20:06, 26 September 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.

Category:NWA alumni

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NWA alumni to Category:National Wrestling Alliance alumni

Rename, less ambiguous. McPhail 18:27, 26 September 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.

Category:SMW alumni

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SMW alumni to Category:Smoky Mountain Wrestling alumni

Rename, less ambiguous. McPhail 18:27, 26 September 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.

Category:Transcontinental Cities

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 --Kbdank71 13:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it is misnamed but more importantly has a sole entry and little chance for growth. Presumably the intent was for intercontinental cities (as ecumenopoleis exist only in fiction), but that still leaves only Istanbul and perhaps Suez. choster 16:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. A discussion about such cities sounds useful. If more than 6 notable examples, recreation is possible, but under a better name : ) - jc37 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless, per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither primary or secondary characteristics of a city, not useful in any sense. Pavel Vozenilek 09:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous. Twittenham 22:23, 28 September 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.

Category:Incorporations by year

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 --Kbdank71 13:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category hierarchy was created a little over a year ago and seems not to have come into use but for a few exceptions. I find it hard to distinguish from the hierarchy Category:Establishments by year, also no documentation exists to assist editors in making use of the hierarchy. meco 15:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Establishments by year...? David Kernow (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overspecific. Different companies and organizations have different criteria for identifying their foundation dates, and "establishments" is sufficiently meaningful while retaining flexibility (e.g. the United States chooses 1776 as its establishment year but 1763, 1775, 1777, 1781, 1783, 1787, 1789, 1791 etc. could be argued). Incorporation moreover, whether of an organization or even a municipality, is a legal action/distinction which often has more to do with tax strategy or political developments than any fundamental change in their nature (is there merit in grouping cities based on when they assumed responsibility for refuse disposal from the county?). It is for similar reasons we list companies by where they are "based" rather than where they are "incorporated." -choster 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, having both incorporation years and establishment years seems like overkill to me. Recury 20:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Companies by year of establishment, 12 entries in 10 cats. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is rather minor characteristics of a company. Looks like an attempt to turn WP into searchable online database. Pavel Vozenilek 09:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not merge to avoid potential errors arising from semantic differences. Twittenham 22:24, 28 September 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.

Category:EastEnders Episodes

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 --Kbdank71 13:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed, nonsense category. Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/listify as misunderstanding of category use. David Kernow (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all it shouldn't be a category. Secondly, if it was an article, it would be a list of 3235 episodes (to date). It would be totally unencyclopaedic. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders has rejected episode lists and maintains Storylines of EastEnders instead.-choster 17:38, 26 September 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.

Category:Non-standard album infoboxes

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 keep --Kbdank71 13:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ASR--Wd2 15:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, self references are implicitely accepted for maintenance templates and categories. It is no different from other maintenance categories. -- ReyBrujo 15:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with ReyBrujo, use as source for wikifying Project Albums which otherwise would be incorrect. Good way to find out which Infoboxes should be Infobox Single rather than Infobox Album . Fantailfan 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this from inside Category:Albums to inside Category:WikiProject Albums articles. People looking through the main albums categories shouldn't see self-references like this, but it would be helpful for members of that Wikiproject, I'm sure. Recury 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Recury's solution should be policy. The category thus serves as an entry point into the project as well. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasons as ReyBrujo stated Andrzejbanas 01:32, 1 October 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.

Category:Foreigners in Thailand

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Expatriates in Thailand. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per nom. David Kernow (talk) 16:15, 26 September 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.

Norwegian football players

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming to match other soccer club player categories, which have the abbreviations, and to avoid confusion as with the Minnesota Vikings.--Mike Selinker 11:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Use full team names. ×Meegs 22:34, 27 September 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.

Railway stations in Japanese prefectures

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, Rename most children of Category:Railway stations in Japan as per Category:Cities in Japan and others. Without _Prefecture added to the end, there is a good deal of ambiguous places, where the capital city and the prefecture share names. I will tag the others accordingly. Neier 09:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All 46 cats are tagged now (or, so I hope). Three cats in parent are intentionally exempted from this renaming: Tokyo, Kyushu, and Shikoku... The latter two because they are islands, not prefectures; and Tokyo because of precedence in other categories.Neier 09:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Golfcam 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Makes sense to be more specific. Bobo12345 11:45, 3 October 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.

Category:Words which have got new meanings by people misunderstanding unexplained usage

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 --Kbdank71 13:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Category:Words which have got new meanings by people misunderstanding unexplained usage

This Nomination has nothing to do with its length, but rather because it could technically include every word in the english language. (For example, let's hear it for idioms : ) - jc37 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Such changes as happened with "mayhem" can cause serious misunderstandings with foreigners trying to read English text. I do not see how it could technically include every word in the English language. Anthony Appleyard 06:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do linguists have a proper term for this sort of thing? Maybe a rename would be better. --Metropolitan90 07:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The linguistic term would be folk etymology, but in the specific case of "mayhem" I believe the term generalization is more accurate. I'm not sure that the phenomenon specifically described by the category name is strictly useful, as this is a property of all semantic change. --Dhartung | Talk 11:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delete, but if it's kept, it should definitely include the word nimrod.--Mike Selinker 11:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't wiktionary; we probably shouldn't even have articles for half of these words. Categories like this only encourage creation of dicdef articles. Recury 13:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete otherwise rename (to...?) as I'd say current name is not readily understandable. (Rhetorical: Would any name for this category be readily understandable...?!) Regards, David Kernow (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, etymological cats belong at Wiktionary. -- nae'blis 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, not well defined and, even if kept, would seemingly belong in Wiktionary. Also, even if kept, the category name is too long and confusing. Dugwiki 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior comments. Twittenham 22:25, 28 September 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.

Category:People from Hokkaido

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Hokkaido to Category:People from Hokkaido Prefecture

Rename, This will make the category match the name used in the parent cat: Category:Hokkaido Prefecture, as well as conform with the rest of the People from... categories in Japan. Neier 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename agree per nom Hmains 01:51, 27 September 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.