May 31
Category:Engineering Societies
- 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 18:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1) misspelt (should be societies), and 2) what exactly is meant by "engineering societies"? Other than those two songs, what would go in this category? — Timwi 19:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC) reply
- What's your point?. There is a
Category:Engineering societies, well populated, not this redlinked capitalized version which you claim had two songs.
Gene Nygaard 21:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, there are two articles there (see
[1]). This doesn't really need a deletion discussion, though, as there's no description page to delete. Just recat those articles as something else. --
Azkar 21:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I've just removed the tags from those pages. These pages would not fit in at Category:Engineering societies. Sadly, the two articles are about the same song, but listing different sets of lyrics (my understanding, after looking at the articles, is each school has a local set). I don't know which is the preferred title, so I've left messages on the talk pages asking the editors of those pages if they could merge to the title of their choice. -- Azkar 05:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, there are two articles there (see
[1]). This doesn't really need a deletion discussion, though, as there's no description page to delete. Just recat those articles as something else. --
Azkar 21:29, 1 Jun 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.
Category:Baldwin brothers
- 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 18:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
created by User:Ssd in July 2004. I came across this category when looking at Alec Baldwin's page. Its a pretty useless category. It small (4 articles) with little room to expand (ie - There are only 4 Baldwin Brothers). Furthermore, the information contained in the category is already contained in the article Baldwin brothers. This makes it a little redundant Dowew 02:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC) User:Dowew reply
- Actually, I think I'd rather see the stubbish information on Baldwin brothers merged into this category description and deleted. The category's fairly harmless. -- Azkar 03:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC) reply
- I'd say merge the information into Baldwin brothers and/or Alec Baldwin, and get rid of the cat. I do agree the category is mostly harmless, but I'm afraid it's also mostly pointless. R adiant _* 12:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Logical grouping. SchmuckyTheCat 14:42, 1 Jun 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.
May 31
Category:Engineering Societies
- 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 18:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1) misspelt (should be societies), and 2) what exactly is meant by "engineering societies"? Other than those two songs, what would go in this category? — Timwi 19:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC) reply
- What's your point?. There is a
Category:Engineering societies, well populated, not this redlinked capitalized version which you claim had two songs.
Gene Nygaard 21:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, there are two articles there (see
[1]). This doesn't really need a deletion discussion, though, as there's no description page to delete. Just recat those articles as something else. --
Azkar 21:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I've just removed the tags from those pages. These pages would not fit in at Category:Engineering societies. Sadly, the two articles are about the same song, but listing different sets of lyrics (my understanding, after looking at the articles, is each school has a local set). I don't know which is the preferred title, so I've left messages on the talk pages asking the editors of those pages if they could merge to the title of their choice. -- Azkar 05:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, there are two articles there (see
[1]). This doesn't really need a deletion discussion, though, as there's no description page to delete. Just recat those articles as something else. --
Azkar 21:29, 1 Jun 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.
Category:Baldwin brothers
- 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 18:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
created by User:Ssd in July 2004. I came across this category when looking at Alec Baldwin's page. Its a pretty useless category. It small (4 articles) with little room to expand (ie - There are only 4 Baldwin Brothers). Furthermore, the information contained in the category is already contained in the article Baldwin brothers. This makes it a little redundant Dowew 02:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC) User:Dowew reply
- Actually, I think I'd rather see the stubbish information on Baldwin brothers merged into this category description and deleted. The category's fairly harmless. -- Azkar 03:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC) reply
- I'd say merge the information into Baldwin brothers and/or Alec Baldwin, and get rid of the cat. I do agree the category is mostly harmless, but I'm afraid it's also mostly pointless. R adiant _* 12:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Logical grouping. SchmuckyTheCat 14:42, 1 Jun 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.