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 17:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

There have recently been signs that consistency might be attainable in this area. Category:American writers is seriously overpopulated, given that it should ideally contain no articles at all as more precise categories can be used in all cases, and most of those categories already exist. I believe that one of the reasons for this is that people don't want to take on the hassle of recategorising when they don't know for sure what the subcategory will be called. Therefore the variant subcategories should be renamed:

• Category:U.S. dramatists and playwrights --> Category:American dramatists and playwrights
• category:U.S. science fiction writers --> Category:American science fiction writers
• category:United States television writers --> category:American television writers

More than 90% of the subcategories already use "American", as do the parent and grandparent categories.

• Rename all CalJW 23:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all as per nom. - Darwinek 10:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all as per nom. Hiding talk 11:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all as per nom. Postdlf 14:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all for consistency. Osomec 16:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename-- nixie 05:49, 5 November 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 to Category:Discoverers of chemical elements -- Kbdank71 17:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

This is a great category, but the name is very clunky, I was hoping that voters could suggest a more pleasing name for the category.-- nixie 23:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply

It can't be shortened much as the three main words are all essential, but Category:Discovers of chemical elements would be better English and in line with the convention that people categories are pluralised. CalJW 23:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Guess you're meaning category:discoverers of chemical elements. :-) — Insta ntnood 11:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Yes. CalJW 13:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename Category:Discoverers of chemical elements Osomec 16:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Discoverers of chemical elements -- Dominus 14:36, 7 November 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Replaced by Category:High Germanic languages because it does not only include the German language and dialects, but also the Yiddish language. (I apologize for being bold; I'm willing to undo the change in case it is not approved of.) -- j. 'mach' wust | ✍ 16:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete now that the renaming has been done, but it would have been better first to suggest the rename here. -- Angr/ _{tɔk tə mi} 17:47, 30 October 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 17:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

This is a subcategory of Category:Academics, and seems hard to justify. Professorial titles in different places don't correlate well with each other, with distinction, or with anything much except in some cases administrative duties of little interest to us here. No explanation at all is offered on the category page. Basically useless. Charles Matthews 12:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose unless the nominator also nominates and tags all of the subcategories. Deleting this on its own will leave them inadequately categorised. It is not appropriate to proceed without notifying users of the subcategories and asking them to participate in the debate. CalJW 21:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • There are three subcategories, with a total of 21 sub-sub-categories and even more if you go to sub-sub-sub-categories. I think the reasonable way is to take it stepwise. There is an excess of categorisation (Irish professor + law professor + Irish law professor, in one case). There seems to have been a build-up of categories in September and October, with quite a participation of anons. It might be argued that 'American professors' is valid, for example. I am saying that all the professor categories should be first dependent on Category:Academics and then we take it from there. Charles Matthews 08:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete this and all professor subcategories. " Professor" means entirely different things in different systems of higher education, and people holding professorships will in any case be more easily found in categories according to their academic disciplines (such as, for instance, Category:Historians or Category:Botanists). Uppland 07:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, it's problematic because it is a job title, not an occupation. Charles Matthews
• Keep, but an introductory sentence for each of these categories is necessary, to tell readers what the title "professor" actually means in that place. — Insta ntnood 11:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete move those under this cat to cats of the academic disciplines involved, as User:Tusharru suggests. i m more than willing to do the Canadian portion - Mayumashu 17:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. I can imagine this cat being of interest in some isolated cases, but usually what we're interested in is what an academic contributed to his field, not whether he held a professorship. Similarly we should think about ditching Category:Doctoral degree holders, where most notable academics would have to go, and the few exceptions (like Donald A. Martin) are frequently genuinely outstanding figures. -- Trovatore 19:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete because the category is too broad to maintain, and is not likely to be useful to readers. Categories for various academic disciplines are more appropriate. -- David Dumas 14:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. -- Dominus 14:34, 7 November 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 16:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

This category was created on May 27, 2005 and still has only one article in it. It has hardly any scope for expansion as there aren't (m)any more India cheeses --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep There is nothing wrong with one item categories. it is better for this to be here than in two less precise categories CalJW 11:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, unnecessary if there's only one item. Paneer can be listed at Category:Cheeses and Category:Indian cuisine with no problem. -- Angr/ _{tɔk tə mi} 17:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Angr. Valiantis 19:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete one article is not a category, it's just a listing of one article! Categorize it as Angr suggests. - Splash ^talk 02:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep with hope that it is expanded. Youngamerican 03:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • comment While it is common knowledge that paneer is the only cheese that has its origins in the subcontinent, I would like this cat kept for recipes including said ingredient. Perhaps the title should be Category:Indian cheese, however. Youngamerican 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • coment I'd like to question your "common knowledge." If you read the actual article, you would notice that it was introduced to the sub-continent from those a bit further west, although still nearby. Although it is consumed largely within the sub-continent, it could hardly be considered to have originated there. Kingerik
• Keep and populate. — Insta ntnood 11:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Keep per CalJW. If it's going to be deleted, move its content to category:cheeses and category:Indian cuisine. — Insta ntnood 13:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Angr, and splash. SchmuckyTheCat 06:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Angr. Arniep 15:31, 2 November 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 keep -- Kbdank71 16:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

It could be renamed to the plural title Category:Punctuations. -- Puzzlet Chung 10:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep, "punctuation" is a mass noun in English; it has no plural. -- Angr/ _{tɔk tə mi} 17:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Angr. Valiantis 19:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as above. CalJW 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Angr. Youngamerican 14:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Angr. Alan Liefting 21:13, 4 November 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 article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRY AGAIN. I'm not happy moving anything or deleting anything on the basis of this, very small, debate. Additionally, the Wikispace pages haven't been tagged (nor have the subcats: are they for deletion, too?). I think a renomination, probably at CfD is the best course of action. - Splash ^talk 21:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Category:Wikipedia image galleries and in particular its Wikispace subpages

This category lists literally dozens of image galleries (pages with no content other than pictures) within Wikipedia namespace. Now while I certainly won't endorse deleting all those images, this way of using them seems hardly productive. Some possibilities include 1) moving to Wikicommons; 2) merging such galleries with related articles; 3) moving all galleries to MAINspace rather than Wikispace; or 4) something else. Please give me your opinion. R adiant _>|< 09:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Any image found on a Wikipedia:List of images subpage should be moved to Commons, because it has a free license. Commons is indexing all of its pictures by topic, and it makes little sense to have two different indexes when there could be one big one.
• Galleries of non-free pictures, such as Wikipedia:Pictures from snp.org, should be converted to subcategories of Category:Images by copyright status, to make it easy to deal with these groups in bulk as the need may arise to convert, replace, or re-license them. These should be categories, not gallery pages, so that the group tag will be added to the image description page.
• All the pages associated with WikiProject Drugs should be kept, since they are just temporary scaffolding. They can be put into Category:WikiProject Drugs if the gallery category is being eliminated.
• Galleries already in the main namespace should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis on WP:AFD, if anyone cares to do so. Some of them are quite well-annotated, and/or do a good job of picking representative photos that document a particular subject or topic, in a way which text alone wouldn't do very well. Some of them don't, and might be better indexed on Commons, if the licensing is compatible.
• I think that should cover all the contents of this category; whether moving or keeping, care should be taken not to destroy any of the information represented by having these images grouped as they are. -- Beland 21:55, 30 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 Speedy deleted. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 03:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

category "Character actors" already exists Category:Character Actor Category:Character actors BeteNoir 09:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete CalJW 11:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Clean Up Category:Character actors. My gosh, F.Murray Abraham is a major star, Stepin Fetchit a one-schtick comedian, etc. 12.73.196.94 02:13, 1 November 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 unmerge -- Kbdank71 16:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

These had been moved without realising the difference between the words (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_27#merge_Category:Environment_into_Category:Environmentalism). Environmentalism is an ideology and environment, when not qualified, is generally the anthropogenic effects on the natural environment. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment for more clarifications. Alan Liefting 07:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Move! It seems that when the previous (August) discussion/vote was underway no one who understands the issue was looking - except me :-) - See my lonely comments there [1]. Vsmith 23:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Move, the natural environment (what is referred to by the "Environment") is studied outside of environmentalism. — Pengo 15:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Move the bulk back to Category:Environment as most are, as Alan said, neutrally tied to the natural environment. Those that deal with ...isms and such should go into Category:Environmental issues for polluters, tree huggers, and luddites alike. bah CQ 04:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• I hope the move will unmerge the two categories which appear to heve been merged. Alan Liefting 07:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Move the scientific and engineering science articles back to an Environment category. Environmentalism is a political ideology, and is not the same thing. --Biology teacher EncycloPetey 13:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Move all comments so far are exactly right: the two would have very different collections of articles with only some overlap - Marshman 18:06, 2 November 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:MediaWiki websites, since that's what it contains, and to avoid confusion with Category:MediaWiki. -- Beland 07:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename Osomec 16:36, 31 October 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 Speedy deleted. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 03:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Bad idea that I created regarding the non-existent concept of template-specific CSDs. Contains nothing, the templates that would place templates into it had includeonly tags around the cats (and could go), and I wish I never thought of it. (I wish there was a speedy for this...) Delete. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply

You can speedy any page for which you are the only editor. Just put {{db|by request of only editor; mistake}} or something like that. I've deleted this one. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:06, 1 November 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.