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 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Could we please not use obscure acronyms for categories? Elf | Talk 23:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename to avoid abbreviations, but the first letter needs to be capitalized, Category:Radio frequency identification. siafu 18:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - RFID is a commonly used acronym. -- DocJohnny 11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to make the term clearer for laymen. Also, avoid abbrev. R adiant _>|< 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment RFID generates 37.2 million hits. radio-frequency identification generates 5.4 million hits. Lay people are familiar with RFID. This isn't really obscure. -- DocJohnny 09:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is not a matter of obscurity. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories): "Avoid abbreviations. Example: 'World War II equipment', not 'WW2 equipment'." Also, Radio frequency identification (without the hyphen) generates about 11 million hits, more than the hyphenated version. siafu 16:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment To get 11 million hits, the search has to be a "all the words" search. An exact phrase search without the hyphen still only yields 5.4 million hits. My point is that despite naming conventions, certain acronyms are so well known, they become words in their own right. Category:Lasers for example. -- DocJohnny 13:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I think this is a case where the abbreviation is better known than the phrase, so it should be an exception to the guideline. The main article is at RFID, and the category should keep its name, too. - EurekaLott 19:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename I'm not familiar with it and I would be very surprised if there aren't vast numbers of other people who are not. CalJW 19:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep or maybe a Catredirect? This is one of those cases when the acronym is better know then the correct name. Vegaswikian 08:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to perhaps Category:radio-frequency identification (RFID). Renaming it to proposed is fine also. I think enough people that use RFID can figure out what Radio-frequency identification is, and for the layperson unfamiliar with either, avoiding the abbreviation gives him/her an idea at least. Best, I think, is my proposed name which is the best of both worlds and cannot possibly be confused with something else. -- C S (Talk) 08:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename popularity is not reason enough to maintain abbreviations over spelled-out names. Joshbaumgartner 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Main article is RFID and people are more likely to encounter the abbreviation before the full name. Think of Radar. I suggest to keep Category:RFID and create Category:Radio-frequency identification with a Template:Category redirect until MediaWiki supports redirecting of categories. -- JFG 12:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename all K1Bond007 20:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I came across the NLP writers category first and I had to work out which of six terms with this acronym was relevant:

• category:NLP to Category:Neuro-Linguistic Programming
• category:NLP Wikiproject to Category:Neuro-Linguistic Programming Wikiproject
• category:NLP concepts and methods to Category:Neuro-Linguistic Programming concepts and methods
• category:NLP predecessors to Category:Neuro-Linguistic Programming predecessors
• category:NLP writers to Category:Neuro-Linguistic Programming writers
• Rename all

Calsicol (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename as a reasonable proposal to eliminate abbreviations from titles where potential ambiguity arises. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 19:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all to remove confusing abbreviations - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep per established naming convention -- Kbdank71 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename - as per naming conventions. See f.ex. Category:Novels by country or Category:Films by country. "Plays by nationality" form is pure nonsense. - Darwinek 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Well, the current name follows the the convention established here earlier, see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Socio-cultural_topics. There is no naming convention, currently, for either the films or novels categories. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose -- the naming convention is that plays should be organized by nationality, so this nomination doesn't make much sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename a convention which says that plays should be categorised in this inappropriate way, and differently from novels, doesn't make much sense. Choalbaton 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. IMO, culturaly categories are better by nationality than by country. siafu 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. as per User:Choalbaton Mayumashu 05:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 19:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 19:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename - as per naming conventions. Darwinek 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Remame per above - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 19:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Pointless category with only one article. LesleyW 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Useless category. -- Thorri 15:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Useless - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Deprecated by category:Storm-petrels. Originally contained only the two article that are currently in it. "Storm-petrel" is more appropriate as it is a) English and b) more readily sorted into both of category:Procellariiformes and category:Seabirds. Circeus 20:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment, this should pend resolution of the previous nominations for birds categories. Are we going to have technical names, common names, or (preferably) both? siafu 18:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Currently, orders are in majority technical names, however, familiesonly use English names when te English is a reasonable equivalent to the latin. For ex. Category:Ardeidae is not manageable with an English name. I consider the orders a separate issue from families. Circeus 19:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Wikipedia is not for specialists only. Osomec 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Similar to the deleted Actors who guest starred on Miami Vice category, this category goes well beyond listing the show's regular cast. - EurekaLott 17:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep but rename to Category:ER actors. -- TimPope 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as above, and prune (or listify) people who aren't regulars. R adiant _>|< 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Improper Use of Category - Delete and Listify cast in article on ER. That's where castlists belong. 12.73.196.129 20:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with 12.73.196.129. Besides, a cast list already exists in the article. -- Thorri 15:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:ER actors. Choalbaton 20:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename and trim per TimPope and Radiant. siafu 18:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Listify for reasons mentioned above.-- Mitsukai 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, categorize regulars, listify guests. Kappa 19:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above -- DocJohnny 11:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category: ER actors. Evil Eye 17:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Renaming to Category:ER actors is not specific since it could include any actor who played any ER character. Vegaswikian 03:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect -- Kbdank71 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Too many Goths probably the flu :-). MeltBanana 16:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Cat redir. R adiant _>|< 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Redirect, as per "Gothic Metal". siafu 18:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename all of the following to replace people with personnel:

• Category:American military people to Cateogry:American military personnel
• Category:Military people of Argentina to Category:Argentine military personnel
• Category:Canadian military people to Category:Canadian military personnel
• Category:Finnish military people to Category:Finnish military personnel
• Category:Georgian military people to Category:Georgian military personnel
• Category:Israeli military people to Category:Israeli military personnel
• Category:North Korean military people to Category:North Korean military personnel
• Category:Russian military people to Category:Russian military personnel
• Category:Slovak military people to Category:Slovak military personnel
• Category:Soviet military people to Category:Soviet military personnel
• Category:Swedish military people to Category:Swedish military personnel
• Category:New Zealand Military to Category:New Zealand military personnel
• Category:Syrian military people to Category:Syrian military personnel

OR

Rename all of the following to replace personnel with people:

• Category:Austrian military personnel
• Category:Danish military personnel
• Category:French military personnel
• Category:German military personnel
• Category:Indian military personnel
• Category:Irish military personnel
• Category:Norwegian military personnel
• Category:Singaporean military personnel
• Category:Spanish military personnel
• Category:Ugandan military personnel

Updated proposal. -- Ze miguel 01:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Support. The last one is particularly confusing, since it's a subcat of Category:Military of New Zealand. Grutness... wha? 22:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Now that a second option has emerged, I favour that over the first. People does allow for non-military personnel associated with the military to be included, which would be an advantage. Grutness... wha? 22:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Military people seems more inclusive and might be preferable. For example, Donald Rumsfeld, is the United States Secretary of Defense would probably be considered in the cat "American military people" but not "personnel." He has military involvement but is not technically a member of the military. Bkwillwm 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. That is incorrect. Per both DOD and VA terminology, retirees and veterans are considered military personnel, just in a different class than active duty or reservists. Thus, Rumsfeld, as a former naval officer, would qualify as "personnel".-- Mitsukai 05:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose moving to "personnel", move it to "people" so I can categorize Sami al-Hinnawi properly. Kappa 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • P.S. please add Category:Syrian military people to the list. Kappa 01:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Done. Ze miguel 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Support - I was just about to propose this; about the New Zealand one (By the way I like "personnel" more as a title) Brian | (Talk) 01:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Support. "Personnel" is standard jargon in most militaries for their people (including both uniformed and civilian) when using English. Additionally, it sounds more professional, IMHO.-- Mitsukai 05:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support the second proposal; this is better able to include people like Rumsfeld, according to the usual definition of the terms. Oppose the original proposal. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support. Prefer people to personnel. Personnel may sound more natural, but people is more inclusive and therefore more useful for the purpose of categories. — Insta ntnood 17:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all to personnel. siafu 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The use of "em" dashes wasn't supported when this category was originally named, but it is now. CLW 15:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. This should be a speedy, I think. siafu 18:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename. Shouldn't this be an n dash (–), without surrounding spaces? 22:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC) comment by Leandrod

That was my initial thought, but no - see User_talk:Duncharris#Category:Darwin_--_Wedgwood_family CLW 22:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedily rename per nom - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (keep) K1Bond007 20:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

What next ? Category:Wikipedians who scratch their arse in the morning ? Ze miguel 14:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Ludicrous. Delete. R adiant _>|< 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep user self-categorization, totally harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Your line of reasoning seems to be that as long as a Category:Wikipedians by foo is not offensive or inappropriate, it should be considered harmless and kept. If we go that way, don't you think we may end up with more categories of users than categories of articles ? -- Ze miguel 21:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • It's entirely possible, sure. I'm not sure that the number of user categories is growing fast enough to catch up, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Needless nonsense. Soltak | Talk 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

*Delete, for reasons above.-- Mitsukai 05:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep - no more useless than other user categorizations. (And I'm not just saying that because I'm in the category.) Anthony 15:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete - This is Wikipedia, not a frivolous day care center. -- Thorri 15:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep There's no reason to delete it; it's not actively harmful. If other people enjoying themselves disturbs you so much, I suggest counseling. Rogue 9 17:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • That is irrelevant and offensive. We are here to create an encyclopedia. CalJW 19:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

And it's offensive how? As for irrelevant, tell me, how does this harm the work of building an encyclopedia? The only thing that's getting in the way is this VfD. Rogue 9 19:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Its meant to be a joke. We delete this and we might aswell delete the other Wikipedian categories.-- Kross ^Talk 18:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Sounds good to me. Soltak | Talk 18:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Sounds good to me, too - Delete this & all other "Wikipedian" cats as superfluous, extraneous, egocentric, juvenile and degrading to the stated purpose of the site and the intent of some of its contributors. 12.73.194.2 00:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Since when do anons get votes? Also, degrading to "the intent of some of its contributors?" So: What makes this degrading and even so, what makes those "some" users more important than everyone else? Rogue 9 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You do have a point there. I'll go ahead and call for a keep.-- Mitsukai 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a humour site. Choalbaton 20:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep.User pages being humorous is not a problem. ThreeAnswers 07:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Most of the Wikipedian categories actually mean something. This category is meaningless. If the category is deleted, make sure to delete Template:User Greedo, too. dbenbenn | talk 18:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree with deleting the template. The templates are for user pages, and while I can see a purpose for deleting the category (though I've changed my vote since), to delete the template is needless. It's there for the same reason the other ones are there - for fun.-- Mitsukai 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The template should be replaced by {{userbox|#ccccff|white| |This user would shoot [[Minor bounty hunters in Star Wars#Greedo|Greedo]] first.}} wherever it's used. People can have whatever boxes on their user pages, but there's no need to pollute the template namespace.
• Delete Stamp out this silliness: abolish the user categorisation system. CalJW 22:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Stamp out? My, how authoritarian of you. Wikipedia is an attempt to establish an encyclopedia, yes, but it is also a community; without the community the encyclopedia cannot and will not come into being. If you set out to stamp out the elements that allow the members of the community to enjoy themselves, you will in the long run damage the encyclopedia. Rogue 9 00:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

That is a clear cut breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please withdraw it. CalJW 11:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Doesn't seem that clear cut to me. -- C S (Talk) 12:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Nor I, though I'm tempted to make one right now concerning inability to comprehend English grammar. Cal, the authoritarian remark was directed at the impulse to stamp out things you don't like, not you yourself. I would have simply accused you of being an authoritarian if that was my intent. Rogue 9 15:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You are splitting hairs, as I expect you know well. I reject your defence of your misbehaviour. CalJW 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

And I reject your assertion that it was misbehavior. Rogue 9 19:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete allowing people to wander off topic is more damaging as it undermines the credibility of the project. Carina22 09:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

How so? Your average user is never going to see the Wikipedian categories; they don't show up from the article namespace. And if knowing that the authors of an encyclopedia enjoy themselves from time to time damages the encyclopedia's credibility, then I hope that the editors of Brittannica never leave work. Rogue 9 19:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep the cat, and keep Wikipedia a fun place to contribute. -- C S (Talk) 12:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Does no harm and is only a bit of fun. Boddah 13:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete silly -- Doc ^ask? 03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Very weak delete It's rather pointless, but then it's not like it's doing any harm. / kaˈʋɛːfa ˈweːnaː/ ^{T| E} 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Just to clarify, I assume we're voting only for the category, not for the associated userbox? / kaˈʋɛːfa ˈweːnaː/ ^{T| E} 16:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 19:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty category originally nominated for speedy deletion, but since this category has been around since early February this year, I'm listing it here instead. -- D e ath phoenix 13:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete: it's a synonym for alternative medicine, and it's under the alternative medicine category. -- CDN99 18:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as redundant with Category:Alternative medicine. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Redundant. siafu 18:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - superfluous -- DocJohnny 11:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename per nom K1Bond007 19:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

not sure how the naming conventions apply to this but the name its got doesnt look quite right. i wouldnt mind if someone comes up with a better name tho although Southern United States is what the article about its called. BL kiss the lizard 11:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Support - "U.S. South" is a really bad name and doesn't give the right picture, "Southern United States" works much better. -- Thorri 15:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support Choalbaton 20:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to match article title. siafu 18:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support New name sounds better and is easier to understand - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus K1Bond007 20:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Although as it currently stands Dojin is the parent category and Dojinshi the subcat, the main articles have been merged under the Dojinshi article, due to the primary knowledge of English speakers being familiar with this term as the catchall. When something is referenced as a Japanese fan work, it's a "dojinshi" work, even if it's more correctly a " dojin soft" or "dojin art" or what have you. With this in mind, the best thing to do then is to make Dojinshi the parent category for all of Dojin's cats and articles, and to subsume it entirely. Mitsukai 03:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• OPPOSE', categories categorize things. If this is done, then all the dojinshi categories should be renamed to stuff like "dojinshi software", "dojinshi artworks", "dojinshi comics", "dojinshi cartoons", "X-rated dojinshi", etc. 132.205.45.110 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 19:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Since WP:IAR doesn't seem to fit in any existing category, somebody figured it requires its own category. Imo, that's both oxymoronic and pointless. Delete. R adiant _>|< 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Whoever created it was probably ignoring all rules when doing so ☺. -- cesarb 00:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It was created by User:Snowspinner, an admin with an interesting relationship with the notion of "ignore all rules" (gleaned from user page). User:Ceyockey 04:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete A category for one page is silly.-- Sean| Bla ck 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• comment - don't we have a Category:Wikipedia guidelines that this page would go in? Grutness... wha? 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Ignore this category. siafu 18:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Illiterate name, silly vanity category. 12.73.198.138 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• K33p. 3V3|2Y P4G3 N\ust B3 iN 4 C4T!!1!! -- C S (Talk) 09:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • 7|-|15 15 4|\| 3|\|6|_15|-| VV1|<1. |}()|\|7 \/()73 1|\| 1337!!! BL kiss the lizard 23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete No use if there's only one page in it, and no, every page does not need to be in a category because that would cause an even bigger overhaul of categories than we have now. O and dont vote in leet, this is an English Wiki - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 19:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, doesn't seem like a bad category but it only has 2 people on it I.e. not enough for a full category. Vulturell 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. Vulturell 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete on the basis that most cats in the form "ethnic group of Americans by profession" should be deleted. Overcategorisation. Valiantis 14:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcat. R adiant _>|< 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Overcategorization. siafu 18:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Too specific, only 2 people on it - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:17, 7 January 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.