Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 11

< December 10	December 12 >

December 11

Category:Railway Stations in the United Kingdom no longer in use

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is redundant. There is another category, Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom which can be used. Our Phellap 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate. Rhollenton 01:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. Besides, concise titles are best. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 14:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an empty redundant category. Courtland 00:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on other categories and articles of this kind: In the case of New York City subway stations, the Category:Abandoned New York City Subway stations exists; in the case of Amtrak (US) stations, the Category:Former Amtrak stations exists; in the case of stations in Melbourne, Australia, the Category:Closed Melbourne railway stations exists. This isn't an exhaustive list, just a note regarding the variety of ways in which the same concept is related. Courtland 00:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians with Erdös number 1

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category will always be empty (see Erdös number). Charles Matthews 22:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense. Rhollenton 01:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the more descriptive Category:Wikipedians_who_have_collaborated_with_Paul_Erdös, unless other Erdös number categories exist.
Delete. Empty and likely to remain so, as Erdos has been dead these ten years now. Herostratus 05:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. ~~I am completely baffled by this one.~~ -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 14:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article referred to by the proposer "Erdős wrote around 1500 mathematical articles in his lifetime, mostly co-authored. He had 509 direct collaborators; these are the people with Erdős number 1." So there have been 509 possible individuals in the world (presumably not all of whom are dead) who could also be Wikipedians, so the category won't always necessarily be empty. However, as it is currently empty Delete. Valiantis 14:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I should confess that late at night I got it wrong: Erdös number 0 defined the late Paul Erdös. Still, the category is clutter. Charles Matthews
Delete What is this supposed to achieve exactly. Sumahoy 17:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template wasn't added to the category, but there's a speedy renaming tag there now: not sure what to do there. There are categories for the other Erdős numbers. This was created to categorize Wikipedia:Wikipedians by Erdős number. Nevertheless, it is likely this category will always be empty. TimBentley 21:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Making all those categories for one, short page with more information is madness, anyway. Charles Matthews
Keep it's not hurting anybody; and with it gone the parent-category Category:Wikipedians by Erdös number will be incomplete without it. Besides, who's to say one of those 509 won't start editing tomorrow? Doops | talk 21:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What the heck. (At least it's not Category:Nude, furry, and possessed Wikipedians with Erdös number 1 who have had their user pages vandalized.) -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Erdős died relatively recently, so it's conceivable his collaborators might eventually start editing Wikipedia if they haven't already. Since the category is currently empty, it won't hurt to delete it, as long as it's understood that it's being deleted only because it's empty. That is, the fact that it's being deleted now should not be used to justify deleting it in the future, should it ever be created again and populated. —Psychonaut 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who cares. Osomec 14:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless your also going to delete the category for people with an Erdos # of 2,3,4,5,... ALKIVAR™ 01:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Child Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this category that was created by an anon IP address that no one is using. — Moe ε 19:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty and pointless. Rhollenton 01:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Empty. Herostratus 05:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not empty. User:Aleksei is in there. Kind of awkward for children to be contributing, but I guess it fits Wikipedia philosophy. I would rather see something like Teen Wikpedians. Perhaps I'll go do that now. --Aleron235 00:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless. One Member, Probably created to insult people. [[--Z.Spy 02:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)]][reply]
Weak delete. But only because of its potential for abuse (as per Z.Spy's argument). -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd rather see it called something like Young Wikipedians, expecting most users to be in their teens, but please let's not delete the category completely. Its very presence tells young people that their contribution might be valued by other users; its deletion suggests that they are simply not wanted on Wikipedia. And however insulted some of us might feel, the fact is that there are a lot of children out there with the knowledge and skill to tell the rest of us something useful... --Elaine Frogley 17:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with what Elaine Frogley said. But I don't think it should be called Young Wikipedians because that would be populated by Wikipedians who think they're young and wouldn't actually mean anything. Aleksei 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Comic book publishers (companies) to Category:Comic book publishers

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge because Category:Comic book publishers only contains companies as well, so this just functions to arbitrarily divide them. The parent, Category:Book publishers, is also used for companies. Postdlf 17:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It's a way of life for us mergists. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 14:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:U.S. history of anti-Communism to Category:History of anti-communism in the United States

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after the initial proposal by another user to simply remove the capital "C" was countered with this proposal by a second user. Rename Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. - Darwinek 18:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but to Category:History of anti-Communism in the United States; capitalization is appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:History of anti-communism in the United States. A capital is sometimes used, but it should not be. Wikipedia doesn't like capitals. The main article is Anti-communism. Sumahoy 16:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, i.e. with the lower-case "communism." Using a capital would imply a unitary movement or philosophy. - choster 03:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with the lower-case "communism." CalJW 09:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who have had their user pages vandalized

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, is this really needed? I see no point on having this category. Plus, it could be asking for more vandalism. --Thorpe 14:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not here to play games. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry User:D-Day (the creator of this category), but when you put something like "created a cat (Meow!)" in the edit summary, I can't help but wonder if you were just being cagey when you created this cat, uh, category. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:PRC politicians to Category:Politicians of the People's Republic of China

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spell abbreviations in full unless they are excruciatingly long, and to avoid naming confusions later.--Huaiwei 14:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move. — Insta ntnood 14:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as stated. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:ROC politicians to Category:Politicians of the Republic of China

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spell abbreviations in full unless they are excruciatingly long, and to avoid naming confusions later.--Huaiwei 14:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move. — Insta ntnood 14:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons given. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:CPC leaders to Category:Leaders of the Communist Party of China

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spell abbreviations in full unless they are excruciatingly long, and to avoid naming confusions later.--Huaiwei 14:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move. — Insta ntnood 14:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons given. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. CPC, frex, can also mean Conservative Party of Canada, so it's really best that the category names be spelled out in full to avoid confusion. Bearcat 19:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dutch football competitions to Category:Football competitions in the Netherlands.

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed name corresponds with the naming guidelines and mirrors the parent categories, Category:Football (soccer) competitions and Category:Football in the Netherlands. Aecis ^praatpaal 12:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support for reasons given. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Histories of Canadian provinces

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alberta history --> Category:History of Alberta
Category:British Columbia history --> Category:History of British Columbia
Category:Manitoba history --> Category:History of Manitoba
Category:New Brunswick history --> Category:History of New Brunswick
Category:Nova Scotia history --> Category:History of Nova Scotia
Category:Ontario history --> Category:History of Ontario
Category:Quebec history --> Category:History of Quebec
Rename all. Naming conventions are clear like water in Crystal Lake (Jason could tell us). Wiki-standard is "History of Foo". See: Category:History by country. - Darwinek 11:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons given. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. -Mayumashu 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom, but these are provinces, not states ;) Aecis ^praatpaal 13:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now changed that. Bearcat 19:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Sumahoy 16:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Quebec history is probably more inclusive than History of Quebec... as what Quebec is defined to be has been different over the ages... 132.205.45.148 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are ~~few~~ no (?) political entities which haven't changed over the centuries. Rhollenton 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Bearcat 19:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Rhollenton 00:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename We're getting there with these U.S. and Canada categories. CalJW 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Youth wings of political parties of mainland China

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant and empty category. Soman 11:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the time being. The talk page would better be kept though. — Insta ntnood 14:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it remains empty. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It was part of the months-long debate and dispute over the use of the term "mainland China" on Wikipedia. This category was depopulated by editors who represents the point of view of one of the parties. — Insta ntnood 17:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dead link

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me how this is supposed to be used. Someone should either write an explanation at the top, or I guess we can just get rid of it. -- Beland 07:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I notice this category was created by an unregistered user, and was probably intended for use with articles about dead internet links. Because of its limited scope, however, I doubt it will ever be populated by very many articles; thus, it is a case of categorical hairsplitting and so is unnecessary. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 14:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia lists to Category:Lists in the Wikipedia namespace

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The former is the only child of the latter. -- Beland 07:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Page vandalism warnings

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unused; the associated template has been deleted. -- Beland 06:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently an artifact. Herostratus 05:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More unnecessary categorical hairsplitting. (Say that three times fast.) -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 14:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Holy scripture to Category:Religious texts

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy scripture is POV and both actually describe the same helohe (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for reasons given. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, rename. Postdlf 17:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Holy Scripture category with the Religious texts category. MakeRocketGoNow 23:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. Osomec 14:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:United States Mint

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a rename but I didn't follow the proper procedure. I've already depopulated this category, moving entries into Category:United States mints. This is part of the re-categorization proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Categories. I'll undo the change if that's the consensus. Mom2jandk 02:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should rename it to Category:Mints in the United States. Consensus in things such as this is quite clear. - Darwinek 11:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge both to Category:Mints in the United States Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if "Mints in the United States" would be right. This category is for branch mints of the United States Mint. There are private mints in the United States that are not included (e.g., Franklin Mint). Perhaps "United States government mints" or "United States branch mints" or even "Branch mints of the United States Mint" would be better? Mom2jandk 18:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either Category:United States Mint branches or Category:United States Mint facilities. Strongly oppose "Mints in the United States"—those non-numismaticians among us are likely to get confused and think of Tic-Tacs and Altoids. Postdlf 18:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Keep The United States Mint is an agency of the United States Government, and this category should be kept, and should contain any mint-related articles. I understand that there are many individual mints operated by the US Government (currently and historically) however they are all part of the United States Mint. I am restoring the category and any others with similar changes. Paul 05:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Not a whole lot more I could say on the subject aside from agreeing that this should be left alone. Arkyan 09:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per PaulHanson. --Tantalum T e lluride 15:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PaulHanson above. Markkawika 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Directors of the United States Mint

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a rename but I didn't follow the proper procedure. I've already depopulated this category, moving entries into Category:United States Mint officers. This is part of the re-categorization proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Categories. I'll undo the change if that's the consensus. Specifically, this was done to allow a superintendent to be included, not just directors Mom2jandk 02:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Merge both to Category:Officers of the United States Mint. This is an office rather than an occupation and this form is more elegant and more standard. We have category:Presidents of the United States rather than Category:United States Presidents. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the President is officially "President of the United States" (hence, the acronym "POTUS"), so the category is not evidence of a category naming convention. Unless there is a similar formal title to observe here, rename to Category:United States Mint officers, or Category:U.S. Mint officers (I ain't afraid a' no abbreviations). Postdlf 17:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Similar to my above vote on cat:United States Mint, this is a category for persons who have held the office of Director of the United States Mint. I realize that the category was originally going to be turned into United States Mint officers in order to include a "superintendent" of the Mint; however the article in question concerns a superintendent of a branch mint, and that office is distinct from that of the Director. Please keep as is. Paul 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul above. Markkawika 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Disney Channel Hit Shows

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created for "Disney Channel shows with more than 1,000,000,000 people watching 1 episode per country." Even using a lower number, a category distinguishing higher-rated Disney Channel shows isn't particularly necessary. tregoweth 00:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom Soltak | Talk 00:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just one of those arbitary categories that seemed like a good idea to the creator but isn't. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Postdlf 17:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia's role to categorize "hit shows on a given network" separately from "television shows on a given network". Upmerge the shows back into the Category:Disney Channel shows parent and delete. Bearcat 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But only because the title is not consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions (had it read Category:Disney Channel hit shows I would have passed on it). -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 11:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Nazims of Pakistan to category:Pakistani mayors

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently nazim is a Pakistani word for a mayor. My first thought was to proposed simply switching the the adjective form, but on second thoughts, unless someone can give a good reason not to use the usual English language term this should actually be renamed category:Pakistani mayors. CalJW 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename unless nazim means something more specific. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Rename. Weak because some will say Category:Mayors of Pakistan is more wikipedian (though I personally do not care much for prepositional phrases in titles). -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 14:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above... and here I was thinking that category was about nazism :-P --Agamemnon2 15:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I also thought it was about nazism. --Vizcarra 19:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Local Governments of Pakistan

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miscapitalised. Created to contain Nazim, which is an occupation, not a local government. Delete CalJW 00:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given. Carina22 15:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words (can you believe I wrote all that from memory?) But seriously, it should be Category:Local governments of Pakistan (assuming, of course, such a category is needed). -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 14:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Sumahoy 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:DVD lists

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

category empty since it's creation Mecanismo | Talk 21:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Excessive overlap with Category:Lists_of_films. Sikyanakotik 01:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been around for five months and is still empty. I guess lists of DVDs aren't very popular! -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 12:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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