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 01:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, I made it redundant Ted Wilkes 00:12, 18 May 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.

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 14:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply

This is a proposal to rename sub-categories of Category:Compositions by composer so that they are consistently named. For example, Category:Bach compositions → Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. This proposal was discussed at Category talk:Compositions by composer and the consensus there was to rename. The full list of renamings appears at User:Pladask/Compositions by composer category cleanup. Gdr 20:12, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. R adiant _* 11:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, sounds good to me too. -- Lochaber 08:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Seems fine, yes. James F. (talk) 13:04, 19 May 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.

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 01:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

A uneccessarily long and inappropriate title, the items should be moved to the main category Category:Westminster System rather than this rather artificial name. This category title is too long and the form of words in the title are rather unprofessional and artificial, for this reason I nominate. In addition their are only four articles in the proposed CFD whilst the main category contains c. 30 items including those of non UK origin. The category, I assume, has only been made to remove Irish articles from the main category which should remain. Djegan 21:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep, and spin the other national elements into their own categories. There is an important distinction between the elements of the Westminister System and the entities that use the system. - SimonP 21:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - for the reasons given - Pete C ^✍ 21:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Djegan sums it up fantastically. - ℬastique▼ ^talk 21:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - It is a phoney category created to keep Irish entries out of Westminster System. Its name is also ridiculous. For example, the President of Ireland is not an entity. Neither is the Taoiseach. Yet Simon linked them to this category. As to the distinction between the supposed distinction between elements of the WS and the so-called 'entitles' that use the system, it is a highly questionable idea. There is no reason why countries and parliaments that use the Westminster System should not be linked to the Westminster System, rather than to a name specially made up by Simon. And all countries using the WS should be together, not pointlessly spread in separate sections where the international aspect and parallels of the system are not communicated, especially as each special country category would only have 3 or four entrants. FearÉIREANN ^(talk) 22:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless SimonP can improve his argument. At the moment, Djegan's case is persuasive.

• Delete - This category seems to be an attempt to maintain some sort of artificial purity of the Westminster System category, by disallowing its application to examples of the Westminster System in practice. If such a position was desirable, it would make a lot more sense to create two subcategories of Westminster System, called something like Elements of the Westminster System and Examples of the Westminster System. Personally, however, I don't see any reason why a single category can't suffice -- Ryano 11:21, 18 May 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.

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 01:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

New user test. (Does that make it a CSD?) -- W( t) 19:45, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

• LOL. Delete. R adiant _* 10:59, May 18, 2005 (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 14:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

An anon de-populated this category and moved the articles to Category:Grand Admirals of Germany, marking the Nazi Germany one with a cfd notice. -- Kbdank71 15:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• I think both Grand Admiral categories should be deleted and a new one, Category:General Admirals and Grand Admirals of Germany should be created instead, since there are so few Grand Admirals. 132.205.94.172 20:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Sounds good, but maybe call it Category:Admirals of Germany? Sounds simpler to me. R adiant _* 07:44, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Yup, move to "Admirals of Germany". James F. (talk) 09:33, 18 May 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.

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 14:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Contains two articles, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Targeted Memory Erasure which is on VfD. -- the wub (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Support, litte potential for population. -- Lochaber 09:05, 19 May 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.

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 14:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Created today. This is vague and superfluous. We already have category:British institutions, category:British society and dozens of sub-cats in which articles about institutions may be placed. If this was fully used it would contain thousands of articles, but that would just be confusing duplication and we have managed perfectly well without it. Oliver Chettle 06:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I have now placed all the articles in other categories - two in most cases. This wasn't difficult, and I think the creation of this category was a well meaning misjudgement by a user who was unaware of the range of categories already available. There are more top-tier sub-cats in the UK menu than in the US menu, and I don't think any more will be required. 07:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Even if the vote was for keep, Britain doesn't have organizations - it has organisations. Grutness... wha? 08:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The Oxford English Dictionary standard uses -ize, while the UK government standard is -ise. — Insta ntnood 18:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The OED has become a farce, acting as a sop to Americans. 90%+ of British people use -ise exclusively. James F. (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC) reply

And so is official usage in most British Commonwealth countries/territories. We dont need a dictionary to tell us that.-- Huaiwei 15:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply

'Delete, superfluous. Neutrality ^talk 21:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Definately, i've just added a subcat. Beta m ( talk)

• Delete, concur with the above. R adiant _* 09:27, May 23, 2005 (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 14:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Not pluralised. Should be Development charities. Oliver Chettle 07:41, 17 May 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.

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 -- Kbdank71 14:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Non standard. All contents should be moved to category:Japanese writers. The duplication was noted on the Japanese Wikipedians' notice board last November, and sentiment was mostly in favour of moving to the standard category, but no action was taken. Oliver Chettle 08:33, 17 May 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.

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) -- Kbdank71 14:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Non-standard. category:American poets should be used for consistency with the majority of American people categories, including sub-categories of American writers. Oliver Chettle 10:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. -- Kbdank71 14:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Delete excellent reasoning, but my heart goes out to the one who has to do it! - ℬastique▼ ^talk 21:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge and delete for consistency's sake. - Sean Curtin 23:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Keep; merge the tiny conent of the newer "American" into the older larger category. -- Infrogmation 05:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge and delete. Neutrality ^talk 21:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless you are planning to include poets from Canada, Mexico, Panama, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, as well as in America, Netherlands and America, Cambridgeshire... and not to forget that there might have been poets on USS America. Beta m ( talk)
• Merge & delete for consistency. Even if Beta M's point is valid, consistency is a more important issue. R adiant _* 09:28, May 23, 2005 (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.