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. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete Redundant as Category:NCFCA already exists. Beyond that, it's a NN category with little to no room for growth pm_shef 23:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete and merge per nom -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 15:56, 12 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

1) name uniformity--the main article uses this format, 2) Google test has more hits for "music genres" (6.3m) over "musical genres" (2.8m) and 3) it further disambiguates the category from " Musical" theatre. -- Kunzite 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. David Kernow 09:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Suppport per nom -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Brevity is wit, or something. Flower party? 15:54, 14 April 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

- by extension to the policy on 'by nation'. Whatever is decided here will need to be applied to Category:French speaking countries, Category:German speaking countries. Ian Cairns 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 23:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. English is spoken in Japan, but Japan is not an English-speaking country. But then, all these categories are somewhat dubious in that way. - choster 20:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Either keep under the present name or delete. The proposed new name is out of the question as English is spoken in all countries. CalJW 00:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose this rename as per CalJW & Choster. On a point of punctuation, if kept, this should be renamed Category:English-speaking countries with a hyphen. Perhaps Category:Countries where English is an official language might be a possibility?? Valiantis 01:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

It would exclue the US which does not have an official language--it seems to be half? of the category--these don't seem to be well populated categories. -- Kunzite 03:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

It would also exclude England! -- Mais oui! 08:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

It's questionable whether it is possible for England to have an official language as there is no national or subnational government of England to state what the official language is. If you're talking about the United Kingdom, then it is a matter of debate whether English is an official language. The WP article declares it a de facto official language. Clearly there is no single statute that states "English is the (or an) official language of the United Kingdom"; however, it is the language of Parliament (legislature), of the courts (judiciary) and of the executive branch of government. I'm well aware of the issues regarding the name I suggested, but it has the advantage of verifiability, unlike the current name or the suggested re-name. The fact that IMO it is still debatable whether a language is "official" or not would encourage me to suggest this cat is better as a list where such issues could be recorded, than as a cat. Valiantis 14:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all Category:''X'' speaking countries to Category:''X''-speaking countries per Valiantis. (Not that I've ever heard a country speak in anything but a metaphorical manner.) David Kernow 10:15, 12 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Brevity. The category text itself says "Things having to do with luck." Melchoir 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. CalJW 08:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Superstition...? David Kernow 10:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. It's already a subcategory of Category:Superstitions. - EurekaLott 14:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Missed that; have amended vote accordingly. Thanks, David Kernow 01:37, 13 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename. all philosophers listed appear to be (i checked those with Slavic looking names) Roman Catholics and not Eastern Orthodox Christians, Old Catholics, or of any other Catholic sect Mayumashu 23:07, 11 April 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. (nothing to merge) - TexasAndroid 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Created a few days ago and left empty by the creator, presumably because s/he realised it was a duplicate. Merge into Category:Australian organisations. CalJW 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC). reply

• comment merge into Category:Australian organisations yeah? Mayumashu 23:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That's what I meant. I've changed it to that. CalJW 00:59, 12 April 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Submitter abstained, and noone else commented. Even if the "rename all" opinions on the one below this are intended to apply to this one (which is a little stretch), each of the submissions in this one have two options as to how to rename them, and no opinions given as to which should be used. - TexasAndroid 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Please see comments below. Category:Chinese language films was renamed from Category:Films in Chinese in February by an admin, acting in good faith to achieve consistency, but without prior discussion. The cat name had previously been discussed in CFD here and consensus was to rename to "Films in Chinese" (the political/linguistic reasons can be seen in the previous discussion). Category:Films in Cantonese was renamed thus at the same time for the same reason (see here) but, presumably as it is a subcat of the Chinese cat, was missed in the general renaming. I'm nominating them here without a specific rename proposal to get a consensus. My vote is Abstain. I haven't included them in the proposal below as I consider the unilateral renaming of the cat in February to be an inappropriate action. However, I would prefer consistency so I also don't want to "vote" for a rename back to "Films in Chinese" at the expense of consistency. Valiantis 21:25, 11 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Arabic language films to Category:Arabic-language films
• Category:Aramaic language films to Category:Aramaic-language films
• Category:Bengali language films to Category:Bengali-language films
• Category:English language films to Category:English-language films
• Category:French language films to Category:French-language films
• Category:Italian language films to Category:Italian-language films
• Category:Japanese language films to Category:Japanese-language films
• Category:Korean language films to Category:Korean-language films
• Category:Kurdish language films to Category:Kurdish-language films
• Category:Russian language films to Category:Russian-language films
• Category:Spanish language films to Category:Spanish-language films
• Category:Welsh language films to Category:Welsh-language films

I nominated the subcats of Category:Films by language for renaming previously (see discussion) but there was no consensus on my proposal to rename all subcats to "Films in Fooian". Some weeks after that failed proposal an admin, acting in good faith to achieve consistency, renamed a number of the subcats without prior discussion. He chose to rename all to the form "Fooian language films" as the majority were (ungrammatically) thus named. The unhyphenated version is at best ambiguous and at worst downright incorrect. Please see hyphen#Rules and customs of usage. I'm now making an alternative proposal as per above so that the names are at least grammatical. Please also see the nomination re: Category:Chinese language films and Category:Films in Cantonese above which I am listing separately. Valiantis 20:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all per nom. CalJW 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom, i.e. insert them missing hyphens. David Kernow 10:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 15:57, 12 April 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. - TexasAndroid 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). "Rome (television)" means the general concept of Rome on television. Individual TV series should be glossed with (TV series) in parenthesis. Also matches the article name - Rome (TV series). The category description explicitly states it is about the HBO/BBC TV series not the concept in general. Valiantis 20:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:39, 13 April 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. - TexasAndroid 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This sounds awkward because the standard adjective is "British". Most of the categories for other countries are in the form "Law enforcement agencies of Foo. Rename Honbicot 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom Scranchuse 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 10:19, 12 April 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 wrong page. - TexasAndroid 18:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• moved to WP:SFD BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:31, 12 April 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. - TexasAndroid 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The capitalisation is incorrect and the article for the sport is at ten-pin bowling. Rename Honbicot 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom Scranchuse 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 10:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Fjorn 19:38, 14 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

POV. All or most of the articles are already in the appropriate categories (and several other inappropriate ones in some cases) so simply delete. Honbicot 17:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC). reply

• Keep notable, useful -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Point of view. No other sport has a category like this. Scranchuse 20:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. CalJW 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as incorrectly capitalised and "World Leading" undefined. David Kernow 10:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as above, highly notable and extremily useful - if other sports don't have this category then I suggest they are created - very useful indeed. It's not POV it's based on their achievements - even ESPN, Sky Sports, ABC and SportsCenter agree. -- Fjorn (poke) ^(prod) 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Does ten-pin bowling have some sort of international ranking system, such as in tennis? If so, rename to Category:World-ranked ten-pin bowlers. David Kernow 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Appears to be personal opinion. Bhoeble 11:26, 18 April 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 withdrawn. - TexasAndroid 19:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The two categories cover essentially the same topic. Most articles listed could go in either category; the rest in a subcategory or alternate category. *Merge to Fungi -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per below -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Types of Fungi belong in Category:Fungi, whereas Category:Mycology is for their study. Subject and science are generally distinct, e.g. Category:Insects and Category:Entomology or Category:Planetary science and Category:Planets. Some cleanup may be required of course.- choster 21:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per choster. David Kernow 10:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep. Or otherwise we'd merge Category:People and Category:Anthropology SP-KP 18:22, 17 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure how or why this would be useful to anyone. Arniep 14:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete A very mariginal attribute. Scranchuse 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Trivia. CalJW 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Those who want it deleted in all likelyhood don't even know what the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards are. Besides, it's not any different than the category for Academy Awards hosts. TMC1982 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I note you created the category. Arniep 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Is that really relevant? Why don't you address his point? -- JeffW 21:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Of course it's relevant as someone who created a category is obviously going to vote keep whatever anyone says. Whatever the Kids Choice Awards are I don't think it can be important enough to the person's involved to warrant it's own category on all their pages. Arniep 02:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I really find it hard to accept the idea that just because you don't know what the American children's cable television network, Nickelodeon's annual award show is about, doesn't automatically warrant deletion. I'm sure that there are numerous award shows that certain people don't usually pay attention two. Since the Kids' Choice Awards have been around for nearly 20 years, it (if you ask me) carries enough of a historical background (so to speak) to warrant extra catagories. TMC1982 16 April 2006

I'm not saying it isn't important to some people, but the question is is it really that important in relation to the career of the people in the cat, the answer I think, is no. Arniep 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards didn't have a lot of wide-spread news articles about it (at least on the Internet) until about 1997. I didn't even know for sure, who hosted the program beyond 1995 before finding the article on wikipedia.com. There have been many big stars (e.g. Cameron Diaz, Mike Myers, Jack Black, Ben Stiller, etc.) who have hosted the program (to go along presenting and/or arriving in person) in the past few years (thus lending the show credibility). Just because the program airs on cable shouldn't automatically downgrade its merit. I would create (time and energy permitting) create a catagory that for people who have hosted the MTV Video Music Awards and MTV Movie Awards. TMC1982 18 April 2006

Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:27, 18 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Move. Dropping the "DJ" from the title to go along with the move of the article from DJ Danger Mouse to Danger Mouse. Fritz Saalfeld ( Talk) 13:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 17:59, 11 April 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 merge. - TexasAndroid 19:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge duplicate categories. The standard naming for countries is "Sport in Foo", it makes sense to use the same standard for continents. AJR | Talk 10:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. -- Mais oui! 11:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose That is not what the category was originally intended for. I don't see the need to divide all the sports articles up on a continental basis. What it was intended for and is useful is coverage of transnational European sports events and leagues. Rename both category:Transnational sports events in Europe and move out the couple of items which don't fit that description which have been added. Bhoeble 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. gidonb 01:54, 18 April 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

While there is a strong consensous to rename, there is no consensous as to what the new name should be. - TexasAndroid 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete -- WP:POINT creation by Tobias Conradi to illustrate his contention of category renaming for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4. The term is non-standard, having one badly translated reference in one document. The category itself is not notable, as these few articles are already categorized in their respective countries. -- William Allen Simpson 10:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Useful to get an international overview. The name perhaps could be re-thought though, but I'm out of ideas! How about something with "defunct" or "historical"? -- Mais oui! 11:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That would be Category:Historical administrative divisions by country, and if the category is useful, then I would support that rename. -- William Allen Simpson 11:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per WAS per Ezhiki (below) -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per User:WAS Mayumashu 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• keep, it was not a point creation, I wanted to collect former and historical country subdivisions. such a cat simply did not exist. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • comment - the cat may include non-administrative subdivisions. This would result in cat-splitting. Furthermore if the other cats are not renamed WP gets a mixture of different catnames. Let's discuss this issue first, before rushing into rename. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested by WAS. Kestenbaum 23:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested by WAS. CalJW 08:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename to Category:Historical divisions by country. Tobias is right, not all of the divisions covered by this cat would be administrative.— Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • ( yo?); 13:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename to Category:Historical divisions by country. per Ëzhiki Carlossuarez46 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Such "pseudo-divisions" should not be included. What kind of divisions might these be: " political divisions", "corporate divisions", "automotive divisions"? Just because a Wikipedia editor describes something as a division does not make it so. Regions are not administrative divisions unless they meet the definition. These are technical meanings of phrases that cannot be decided by a vote here, they would require political bodies to change their own legal definitions and usage of the phrase. Please join the reality-based community. -- William Allen Simpson 17:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• comment2 Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4 - the subdivision categories survived. So maybe better to use "Category:Historical subdivisions by country". Especially since a division is allready one type of entities in administrative context. See: Division (subnational entity). Thus Historical divisions by country would correctly only include those of Pakistan and maybe some that were dissolved in India. It could also refer to historical military units, see the allready existing interference with Category:Divisions - a category where the administrative entities of Myanmar, India, Bangladesh etc are not allowed to enter. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • They got a no consensus result so there is no precedent created. -- JeffW 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The closer was confused by Conradi's voluminous objections. An actual count shows a clear consensus. As long as a few disruptive influences such as Conradi can override more knowledgable folks, there will never be "consensus". -- William Allen Simpson 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
    • IMO Willy should provide evidence for these claims. Fuerthermore: more disruptive to me seems that once again Willy started a poll on this while a discussion was started at Category_talk:Country subdivisions (for new poll see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#Subdivisions_to_appropriate_divisions) and he hides certain facts again on purpose or on unability/unwilligness to work cleanly. Willy stated for the second time (even after corrected when doing so the first time) that certain pages are under a certain name, but when examined it turns out he only lately moved them there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rebuttal -- I take great offense at the denigration by Conradi, and use of diminuative name calling. Due to his obvious ignorance of Scottish history, he probably has no idea of the offensiveness of his words.

• • Conradi obfuscated the clear results of the previous CfD by putting the following notice on several talk pages of these persons:
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Changlc&diff=prev&oldid=47664176
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Big_Adamsky&diff=prev&oldid=47669133
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:E_Pluribus_Anthony&diff=prev&oldid=47669347
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Earl_Andrew&diff=prev&oldid=47669454

need your help, kind of urgent, someone wants to split the cats and articles of "subdivisons of XY" to "Administatrive divisions of some countries" and "Political divisions of some other countries".

could you maybe vote on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4#Category:Subdivisions_by_country_to_Category:Political_divisions_by_country

• • Conradi also posted a request to change their vote on the pages of many (all?) of the persons supporting the change:
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Luigizanasi&diff=prev&oldid=47665244
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:David_Kernow&diff=prev&oldid=47665514
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Mayumashu&diff=prev&oldid=47666192
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:The_Minister_of_War&diff=prev&oldid=47666394
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Esprit15d&diff=prev&oldid=47667165
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Carlossuarez46&diff=prev&oldid=47668488
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Carina22&diff=prev&oldid=47668595
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Ezhiki&diff=next&oldid=47581683 through http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Ezhiki&diff=prev&oldid=47972422
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Kestenbaum&diff=prev&oldid=48047116

• • This last minute vote mongering and voluminous commentary and objections by Conradi caused the closer to ask that the entirety be relisted, and that is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#Subdivisions_to_appropriate_divisions).

• • As the same technique is occuring here, I ask that this behind the scenes maneuvering be taken into account when closing this request. -- William Allen Simpson 17:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I cannot speak for others, but as to the notices posted by Tobias on my talk page, they were per my request to keep me informed of such things.— Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • ( yo?); 12:09, 17 April 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. - TexasAndroid 19:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Capitalisation. Peter Grey 07:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved from speedy after comment. Vegaswikian 05:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Captial "B" Bishops is better -- it is more in keeping with the importance of the office of Bishop! Pastorwayne 14:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Category:Bishops by nationality all use bishops. Vegaswikian 05:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 05:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 14:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles. Valiantis 19:54, 11 April 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 merge/delete. - TexasAndroid 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I propose deleting Category:New Zealand top 10 singles and Category:Australian top 10 singles (see below), and moving the only other occupant of this "pretty vacant" (get it?) category - Category:Number one singles - into Category:Singles. I feel that this category is too small and lacking in usefuleness to stand alone, and that Category:Number one singles is sufficiently important to be a level higher. -- kingboyk 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep; I created this supercat to reflect the reality that people rank music by popularity all the time. All the billboard charts, top ten lists, number 1 singles, and download rankings are just examples of grouping by popularity. Not to mention the Dr. Demento Funny Five. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Except it's all but empty, adds an extra navigational hop, and hides the very important "number one singles" category from the higher level supercategory. -- kingboyk 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I expect it would grow when people start creating cats for internet download rankings.-- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per ProveIt -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Abstain Most articles on singles will be in one or more of the sub-sub-cats of Category:Singles. It is standard practice to subdivide large "higher-level" cats firstly into "X by Y" categories; Category:Singles is currently subdivided into several such "Singles by..." categories. I do wonder however if Category:Singles is large enough currently to make the superstructure worthwhile. (Argued myself out of a keep vote here!) Valiantis 20:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete No legitimate content except number 1 singles, and I wouldn't care if that was abolished too. Scranchuse 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - some singles could be put in a massive number of categories if we sort like this. TheGrappler 15:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Flower party? 15:54, 14 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

No other countries see fit to record top 10 singles which - unlike number one hits - are rather unremarkable and potentially very numerous. Also, these two categories are the sole occupants of Category:Singles by popularity besides Category:Number one singles, which is a very healthy category with many subcategories. -- kingboyk 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete If copied for other countries this could lead to too many singles being in too many categories. Bhoeble 14:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep; I'm all for killing unused categories ... but people are using this one. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • And editors are using many categories that are deleted, so usage is not a reason to keep. Vegaswikian 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Proveit -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete The fact that it is used doesn't make it a good idea. Some singles have made the top ten in fifty or more countries. Scranchuse 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A bad precedent. The number 1s categories should be deleted too as chart success is a poor guide to lasting encyclopedic significance. CalJW 08:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. First, 10 is an arbitrary number to stop at (unless the chart only goes up to 10?) Second, there's a lot more countries in the world than Australia and NZ, and succesful songs will chart in dozens of them, so imagine how many catgories they'd be put in. Also, we don't really have articles about singles, we have articles about songs, so for songs where there's a notable cover version ( American Pie, for example), there's no meaningful way to assign "top 10" to the subject of the article, which is "American Pie" the song, not "American Pie" the 2000 single by Madonna. Anyone volunteering to nominate the 'number ones'? Flower party? 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm strongly in favour of retaining the number ones categories. In days gone by, the number one was hallowed turf. It really meant something. Many music buffs, myself included, enjoy reading about the records that have hit the top spot, and find the category useful - what we don't need is some massive, arbitrary categorisation such as "top 10", "top 23 and a half", etc etc. Furthermore, whilst I accept that many if not most notable singles did not reach number one, I believe (and I think WP:MUSIC backs me up on this) that a number one hit in a sizeable country automatically confers notability. -- kingboyk 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, that's why I wasn't going to nominate them myself :) I guess it doesn't hurt to have the number one cats. It's worth noting, however, that our list coverage in this area is excellent, at least for US/UK: List of number-one singles (UK), List of number-one hits (United States). Flower party☀ 23:59, 17 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

No other countries see fit to record top 10 singles which - unlike number one hits - are rather unremarkable and potentially very numerous. Also, these two categories are the sole occupants of Category:Singles by popularity besides Category:Number one singles, which is a very healthy category with many subcategories. -- kingboyk 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete If copied for other countries this could lead to too many singles being in too many categories. Bhoeble 14:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep; People are using it ProveIt ^(talk) 16:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keeep useful -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete The fact that it is used doesn't make it a good idea. Some singles have made the top ten in fifty or more countries. Scranchuse 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A bad precedent. The number 1s categories should be deleted too as chart success is a poor guide to lasting encyclopedic significance. CalJW 08:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - some singles could be put in a massive number of categories if we sort like this. TheGrappler 15:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Flower party? 15:54, 14 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant ( Category:Capitol Broadcasting Company) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:29, 11 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Clear Channel radio stations

See: Category:Clear Channel television stations

• Delete per nom -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:04, 11 April 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 redundant debate. - TexasAndroid 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Computer vision/Commercial systems

• Comment What's with all these subpages in the category space. I thought that wasn't allowed. -- JeffW 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You're right, it's not allowed. All of those are already up for renaming. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

But you're proposing deleting the properly formatted name in favor of the improper name? -- JeffW 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Computer vision commercial systems -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:55, 18 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant, blanked by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:History of Azerbaijan/The Azerbaijani Atabek State

• Comment I believe the slash makes both of these subpages which are not allowed in the Category name space. -- JeffW 22:37, 17 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

too narrow -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 14:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom Scranchuse 20:20, 11 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Wait, hold on. The Chiefs are normally known as a football team. This category has BASEBALL players for the defunct (but unrelated) team of the same name. What happened to the contents of this category?-- Mike Selinker 15:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Sorry, my mistake, It's not redundant. Blanked by User:MisfitToys. ProveIt ^(talk) 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Well, it might be. I can't find any evidence that a baseball team called the Kansas CIty Chiefs ever existed. I wonder what was in this category?-- Mike Selinker 02:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • According to the revision history, this category was created by Mike Selinker on Feb 19, 2006 -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, I saw that, and I'm sure I had a good reason at the time, but what it was is impossible to tell without knowing what the deleted contents were. So I'd say delete it, and if we come across a player who deserves the category, we'll know why.-- Mike Selinker 00:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Explanation: I moved Charley Jones from this cat to Category:Kansas City Cowboys players, the correct one. I'm sure that was the only article there; Mike added the category to Jones' article on the same day he created the category. MisfitToys 00:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Well, that explains it then. Delete this so I don't have this mistake on my permanent record.-- Mike Selinker 18:27, 13 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Kentucky Derby winners

• Delete per nom -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 15:59, 12 April 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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Maricopa County Community Colleges

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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 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 redundant. - TexasAndroid 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Computer vision/People

See: Category:Computer vision people

• Delete Category:Computer vision/People instead as it has the illegal name. -- JeffW 22:28, 17 April 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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 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. - TexasAndroid 18:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Royal League

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. - TexasAndroid 18:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

blanked by User:Achmelvic -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 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 redundant. - TexasAndroid 00:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

redundant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Computer vision/Software

• Delete Category:Computer vision/Software instead as it has the illegal name. -- JeffW 22:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Computer vision software -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:01, 18 April 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.