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 subcat -- Kbdank71 8 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)

Are these the same? It looks like they should be merged. -- Tabor 1 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)

• They are not exactly the same, as TRADOC is more for testing and establishing procedure, but they should be merged under Category:United States Army training facilities, or at least make TRADOC a sub-cat of the former. <>Who ?¿? 2 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 8 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to categorize articles that have a spoiler in it. There has to be thousands of articles that match this criteria. Not needed. K1Bond007 July 1, 2005 21:24 (UTC)

• Delete. There's {{ spoiler}}, {{ spoiler-other}} and another one I can't remember that do the job fine since this information need appear only in the article. - Splash July 2, 2005 01:42 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, such a category serves no purpose. The other template is {{ spoiler-about}} by the way. See Wikipedia:Spoiler warning for usage info. DES 2 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
• Delete, says nothing useful about the articles to which it is applied. - Sean Curtin July 3, 2005 23:31 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 8 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

This is a well-known multi-person blog. The cateogory (which was never categorized itself) includes notable columnists who participate in the blog. I am nominating it because I have never seen a comparable category for other publications, either in print or on the web. If this category is acceptable, then it would be logical to have analogous categories for any or all publications with notable columnists. That would include The Huffington Post and continue on down to the major newspapers. I suggest we delete this and recategorize the articles into category:Columnists. - Willmcw July 1, 2005 20:36 (UTC)

• Delete. Promo, vanity. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 8 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

Already exists under the name Category:House of Karađorđević. Adam78 1 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

There should definitely be only one category, but are those characters (đ and ć) safe for article titles? I don't quite follow whether or not anything is still unsafe, if we're now running MediaWiki 1.5. Looking at Œ, Ð and Þ, for example, it would seem this is now (at last) safe.

Assuming the diacritised form is safe for a category title, then I'd suggest we delete Category:House of Karadjordjevic and move articles to Category:House of Karađorđević. Otherwise, I'd support the reverse (deleting Category:House of Karađorđević and move to Category:House of Karadjordjevic). — OwenBlacker July 6, 2005 13:34 (UTC)

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 software development, delete software development process -- Kbdank71 8 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

Delete. duplicated by category:Software development process ( Nigosh 15:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) added later)

• Agreed. Btw please sign your nominations. R adiant _>|< 08:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC) Keep this, delete the longer one per Courtland. R adiant _>|< July 1, 2005 13:41 (UTC)
• Delete as suggested. Pavel Vozenilek 01:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. But suggest renaming to Category:Software development processes. - Splash July 3, 2005 15:21 (UTC)

My vote stands. The things listed in this cat are quite specific: they are software development processes. We could make a parent cat Category:Software development, since that may eventually expand to include other things along the lines of Software engineering.- Splash July 3, 2005 15:21 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Delete category:Software development process. As someone who works in software development, I can say that the process is referred to as "software development" and not "software development process". I think the vernacular term should be used in this case. Courtland June 29, 2005 00:08 (UTC)
• Reverse' agree with Courtland on deleting the longer name. -- ssd 29 June 2005 02:53 (UTC)
• Keep Category:Software development and delete Category:Software development process. Agree with Courtland. — Lowellian ( talk) June 29, 2005 18:16 (UTC)
• NOTE: This listing is from the 24th. Software development is empty, but there was no consensus on which category to delete (see discussion above). I'm putting it back up for another seven days to see if consensus can be reached. -- Kbdank71 1 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
• Agree with proposal to rename as suggested by Courtland. - Nigosh 2 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)
• 'Merge and Rename as suggested by Courtland. I am also a software developer, and I fully agree with his statement that the term "software development process" is not commonly used.
• Rename as suggested. - Sean Curtin July 3, 2005 23:31 (UTC)

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 -- Kbdank71 8 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)

• Miscapitalized and I see no reason this should not simply be merged into Category:Taxation. - SimonP July 1, 2005 12:19 (UTC)
• Rename to Tax reform. This category is relevant to finding other articles on tax reform which would otherwise be buried in Category:Taxation. I suggest further research to see if this category is supportable by other tax reform related wiki articles. Inigmatus July 1, 2005 19:19 (UTC)
• Rename. This has room for useful growth. - Splash July 2, 2005 01:44 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 8 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)

This empty category is redundant; there was already a Category:DJs chock full of articles. Apparently the person who created this one noticed it but didn't know how to delete it, so they set it up as a redirect and made it be a subcategory. I cleaned out the handful of articles that were in it and removed the redirect. It can be safely deleted. — mjb 1 July 2005 09:48 (UTC)

• While I know that DJ is the most commonly used term, I have some objection to using abbreviations as cat names; I'd prefer a rename to Disk jockeys. R adiant _>|< July 1, 2005 11:29 (UTC)
• Comment: There's also the problem that the term DJ can refer to two different things - radio announcers and live club and dance-floor disc mixers. AFAIK "Disk jockey" only refers to the radio announcer type (although I may be mistaken in this). It might be worth considering the ambiguity of the term DJ before any final decision is made. Grutness... wha? 1 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you're mistaken in this (See DJ). But we do have Category:Radio DJs, maybe that'd help? R adiant _>|< July 1, 2005 13:41 (UTC)
• Keep; agree with R — 23:52, 1 July 2005 User:Maurreen
  • That wouldn't be a keep, if you're agreeing with Radiant; it'd be a delete of Category:Disc jockeys and then a rename of Category:DJs. — mjb 3 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 8 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)

This empty category is redundant with its parent, Category:Articles to be merged. It should be deleted. NatusRoma 1 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)

• Delete. R adiant _>|< July 1, 2005 13:41 (UTC)
• Delete. Aww, can't we merge it :) <>Who ?¿? 1 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

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 -- Kbdank71 8 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Film actors to coincide with previous Cfr to rename Category:Cinema → Category:Film. Film seems like a more logical name, as its mostly referred to film rather than the former name of cinema. <>Who ?¿? 1 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

• Rename -- Samuel Wantman

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.