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. Vegaswikian 05:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

To match Category:United States House of Representatives elections by state. — Markles 10:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Luna Santin 10:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong (and speedy) Support - the articles have more than just results, but a fuller description of the rcae. -- Sholom 16:42, 13 June 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. Vegaswikian 05:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This category is about what people do in the arts, their occupations, only. This change is consistent with the project discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Categorization. Clubmarx 22:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 22:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Kleinzach 23:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Calsicol 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename for consistency with the projected Category:Arts occupations. Also, it just sounds better. HAM 17:57, 15 June 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. Vegaswikian 05:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Art and design workers already encompasses more than the visual arts and there is a need for an occupations category for the entire category of the arts. This change is consistent with the project discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Categorization. Clubmarx 22:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Kleinzach 23:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Usgnus 19:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and ARTS/CAT discussion. HAM 17:49, 15 June 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. Vegaswikian 05:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Not a category -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 01:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Osomec 16:42, 12 June 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. Conscious 16:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This category is not used much and is too broad. Media, entertainment, and sports subcats are already listed directly under Category:Occupations. Category:Advertising people is already in 'Advertising. This change is consistent with the project discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Categorization. Clubmarx 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete and recategorize population in separate categories respectively (cf above proposals). Nice one, Clubmarx!   David Kernow 22:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. - Kleinzach 23:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. ReeseM 01:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. Ridiculous grouping. HAM 17:50, 15 June 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. Vegaswikian 05:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

After cleaning out the previously-deleted categories listed below, the remaining categories for Oz characters still need various capitalization and disambiguation fixes. - EurekaLott 21:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy move. Let's get this over with. BoojiBoy 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Are the dabs really necessary? Do you think Dorothy Gale will be put into category:Visitors to Oz?-- Mike Selinker 04:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I (obviously) think they're necessary. There's a well-established hierarchy at Category:Oz, and this would be an easy way to avoid any confusion. - EurekaLott 14:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all for consistency with Oz (TV series) article. -- Usgnus 19:56, 12 June 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. Vegaswikian 05:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 20:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Lower-casing. Twittenham 15:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• NGA???? How about Category:National Golf Association Hooters Tour events? Vegaswikian 20:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. It's the official name for a sponsored event so we should use it. Google hits are 34,300 versus 105. It comparable to category:PGA Tour events. That is correct because it is based on what the tour is called, whereas category:Professional Golfers Association events would be factually wrong because the Professional Golfers Association (of America) doesn't operate the tour any more, whereas some of the other tours are operated by the regional PGA so they would have more right to be in category:Professional Golfers Association events than PGA Tour events would. ( ReeseM 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Abbreviations should be OK when they're part of a phrase being quoted, in this case "NGA Hooters Tour".-- Mike Selinker 05:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Osomec 16:47, 12 June 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. Conscious 16:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

There's only two articles in this category. Previously, several fancruft articles were in it, but they were all deleted and/or merged into the other two remaining articles. There isn't much likelihood that more articles will be added to this category. -- LGagnon 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Books by Ayn Rand. - EurekaLott 20:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:Books by Ayn Rand. ReeseM 01:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge as per above. Fancruft, nn, etc. -- infinity 0 19:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete no longer needed. -- User:Docu

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, no consensus to merge. Conscious 16:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Don't want to bite the newcomers, and especially not a promising one like Trident13, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Perhaps a reframing/renaming/merging might be better than deletion, but as it stands currently, not appropriate IMO. SP-KP 18:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Visitor attractions in Somerset. -- Usgnus 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This could be a solution - if we adopt it, not all articles should transfer to it though - Orchardleigh Lake isn't really a visitor attraction as such SP-KP 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Visitor attractions in Somerset. ReeseM 01:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Visitor attractions in Somerset. Calsicol 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Having given this some more thought, I'm going to suggest renaming to Category:Environment of Somerset (as a subcategory of Category:Environment of the United Kingdom) SP-KP 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Somerset is far too small and lacking in distinctiveness to merit such a category. Athenaeum 16:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Environment of Somerset per SP-KP. David Kernow 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Environment of Somerset per SP-KP, David Kernow. - Kleinzach 22:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Visitor attractions in Somerset. Athenaeum 16:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Visitor attractions in Somerset. I don't believe any other county of England has an environment category, but they all have visitor attractions categories. CalJW 03:45, 14 June 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. Vegaswikian 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Originally proposed for speedy renaming by Kalkin 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No reason for it to exist other than propaganda. An encyclopedia needs to show a more sophistication than making a division of people into "pro" and "anti" anything. Chicheley 18:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. If the decision is made to keep, it should be renamed to "Veterans opposed to the Iraq War" for clarity. -- Usgnus 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Seconded. × Meegs 06:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Chicheley Osomec 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename/Upmerge to Category:Veterans opposed to War. It would defuse any propagandistic usage and is certainly encyclopaedic. -- E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's just a crude and a great deal vaguer. How many wars would they have to be opposed to, which conditions would apply? Athenaeum 16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is un-encyclopedic. Plus, if we keep this, in order to keep WP neutral we would need a Category:Veterans supporting war and both are just silly and worthless except at propaganda. -- Dakart 08:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This does not belong in an encyclopedia. Athenaeum 16:14, 13 June 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 speedy merge as recreation of deleted content. - EurekaLott 20:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

A user has recreated these, despite a vote to delete, and then a deletion review. I voted to keep these originally, but the recreation of them is way uncool. Below are the original requests from Usgnus, but I would suggest they deserve a Speedy merge back into category:Prisoners of Oz and Category:Staff Members of Oz (recapitalized to "members").-- Mike Selinker 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Aryan Inmates of Oz to Category:Aryan inmates of Oz capitalization. Usgnus 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Category:Biker Inmates of Oz to Category:Biker inmates of Oz capitalization. Usgnus 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Category:Gay Inmates of Oz to Category:Gay inmates of Oz capitalization. Usgnus 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Category:Homeboy Inmates of Oz to Category:Homeboy inmates of Oz capitalization. Usgnus 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Category:Irish Prisoners of Oz to Category:Irish inmates of Oz capitalization. Usgnus 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Category:Italian Inmates of Oz to Category:Italian inmates of Oz capitalization. Usgnus 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Category:Latino Inmates of Oz to Category:Latino inmates of Oz capitalization. Usgnus 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Category:Muslim Inmates of Oz to Category:Muslim inmates of Oz capitalization. Usgnus 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Category:Other Inmates of Oz to Category:Other inmates of Oz capitalization. Usgnus 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Category:Correctional Officers of Oz to Category:Correctional officers of Oz capitalization. Usgnus 15:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Category:Staff Members of Oz to Category:Staff members of Oz capitalization. Usgnus 15:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge -- Usgnus 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Merge and Burninate with extreme prejudice. BoojiBoy 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. If these were already deleted, aren't they covered for speedy deletion under rule G4: Previously deleted? If so, just list them at speedy deletion. Vegaswikian 20:25, 11 June 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 -- Cyde↔Weys 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:American teachers to Category:American schoolteachers
• Category:Australian teachers to Category:Australian schoolteachers
• Category:Belarusian teachers to Category:Belarusian schoolteachers
• Category:British teachers to Category:British schoolteachers
• Category:Czech teachers to Category:Czech schoolteachers
• Category:English teachers to Category:English schoolteachers
• Category:Fictional teachers to Category:Fictional schoolteachers
• Category:Northern Irish teachers to Category:Northern Irish schoolteachers
• Category:Romanian teachers to Category:Romanian schoolteachers
• Category:Russian teachers to Category:Russian schoolteachers
• Category:Scottish teachers to Category:Scottish schoolteachers
• Category:Venezuelan teachers to Category:Venezuelan schoolteachers
• Category:Welsh teachers to Category:Welsh schoolteachers

This category is mainly used for schoolteachers, and it makes sense to make that explicit as there is room for confusion, and if it is not restricted it is just a confusing dupicate of category:Educators. This is made more necessary by the fact that in some countries the distinction between teachers and professors/academics is not as clear cut as it in the English-speaking world, which means that the purpose of this category can get lost in translation Chicheley 17:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename as above. Chicheley 17:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. None of the other "teacher" related categories use "schoolteacher". The article is Teacher. -- Usgnus 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • So rename them all. ReeseM 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Keep all. -- Usgnus 17:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Please don't count these two keeps separately. ReeseM 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. I will list the others. ReeseM 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Now done. The Venezeulan category was in category:Educators by nationality, but category:teachers is only one of several broad subcategories of Category:Educators. That illustrates one of the problems with the existing name that Chicheley mentioned. "Teacher" is more common in everyday use of course, but it is usually clear from the context that it is serving as an abbrevation for "Schoolteacher". In Wikipedia that context is largely absent. ReeseM 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all -- the article Teacher was correctly named. Nobody is called "Schoolteacher" as a title. There's no problem with loss in translation, as the category has a main article with a clear definition. -- William Allen Simpson 03:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That assumes that everyone reads the article before using the categories, which isn't very likely. Osomec 16:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all as nominated. The article Teacher should be replaced with separate articles called "Schoolteacher" and "Educator". Osomec 16:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all. The proposed names are clearer and hardly too long. Calsicol 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all This is a good idea. Ramseystreet 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• rename all Schoolteacher is clearer and more accurate and has no significant drawbacks. Athenaeum 16:16, 13 June 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 reverse merge. Conscious 16:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Empty. Redundant of Category:Congressional districts of District of Columbia. — Markles 15:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge as "District" here follows a preposition rather than (say) a comma...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep and reverse merge -- also noting that Markles just created the new category and moved the articles, then came here for a deletion of the original. That's out of process. -- William Allen Simpson 03:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge as above. Osomec 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and also delete Category:Congressional districts of District of Columbia. By definition there are no congressional districts in DC.-- M @ r ē ino 17:19, 19 June 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 Meerge. Vegaswikian 05:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Redundant of Category:Computer and video game franchises. Also uses wrong capitalization. Thunderbrand 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge with Category:Computer and video game franchises per nom, otherwise if kept, correct faulty capitalization. David Kernow 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Category:Computer and video game franchises as per nom. Pikawil 00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Athenaeum 16:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge.-- Mike Selinker 15:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. ~ Hibana 23:08, 18 June 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. Vegaswikian 05:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

As per the category for deletion nomination for Category:Omega models, and discussion at Talk:Cindy Crawford and Category talk:Supermodels, "Supermodels" is not an encyclopedic term for categorising. It is not a "real" profession, and the term itself is a media creation. It's also highly POV, because who exactly decides when a particular model extends his or her career from that of a mere model to a "supermodel"? I understand the term denotes exceptional earning power or visibility within the industry, but categories should not be based on levels of success, especially when the criteria for inclusion on such a list is highly subjective - the particular noteworthy, unique achievements of the individual should be discussed in their article, rather than using a colloquial term to try to group all of them under one elite category. The current category of "Models" is all but empty, but seems to me to be a more logical and encyclopedic place to list these people, as it uses the correct name of their profession. Rossrs 14:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, I nominated for a merge, but I'm happy with delete. Rossrs 11:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete' No need to merge as I checked several and they are already in the by-nationality categories. Twittenham 15:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Twittenham ReeseM 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above.-- Smerus 10:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - non-NPOV. Afonso Silva 12:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV hypester term. Osomec 16:47, 12 June 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 to category:Indigenous peoples of Peru. Vegaswikian 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Better description of category, capitalization. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom or to Category:Indigenous peoples of Peru. (Maybe other countries' indigenous culture could be grouped under "Indigenous culture of X" categories in a parent Category:Indigenous culture...?)  Regards, David Kernow 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC), amended 20:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, but I didn't find anything like that. Presently this cat is directly under Category:Indigenous peoples of South America -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Indigenous peoples of Peru to match the SA category. Athenaeum 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Indigenous peoples of Peru CalJW 03:47, 14 June 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. Vegaswikian 05:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Having been interviewed for Playboy is not really a defining characteristic of Paul Newman or Billy Wilder or any of these other people. Celebrities get interviewed by hundreds of publications in their lifetimes, which makes this a pretty bad precedent. JW 11:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete; I think this would be better as a list. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, and in agreement with User:ProveIt's suggestion. Rossrs 15:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 15:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify/delete per above. David Kernow 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Osomec 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. — Centrx→ talk 04:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Just saw this category on The Beatles and my reaction of "wtf?!" was only tempered by seeing it up for deletion. Certainly a categorisation too far. -- kingboyk 12:46, 16 June 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 both to Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction. Vegaswikian 05:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge and rename. These two populated categories appear to have a duplicate scope, and should at least be merged. Neither name however seems particulary standard (and for consistency with other usage it should be Ancient Egypt and not ancient Egypt )- I would further propose that both be replaced and renamed by something like Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction. cjllw | TALK 10:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Agreed on all counts. I can't think of any category name better than what you've proposed. Luna Santin 10:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge both to Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction per nom. Nice one, cjllw!   David Kernow 11:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge both to Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction per nom. Agathoclea 23:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge both to Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction per nom ReeseM 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge & rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 06:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC) ( Amelia Peabody fan) 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 to Category:Sports organisations. Vegaswikian 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Most Category:Sports organisations are professional -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Or, at least, most of the notable ones will be; the number of notable sporting organizations probably doesn't require a division of that nature. That said, is "sports" or "sporting" the preferred use, here? And without revealing myself as both a boorish American and a new editor, is there any precedent about American/British spellings (organisation/organization)? I doubt that last bit's important, but if it is, I thought I should point it out. Luna Santin 10:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• I think the deal re U.S./other English spelling is to accept whatever you find being used. See "National varities of English" in the WP:MoS. Regards, David Kernow 11:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. A distinction which is more trouble than it is worth due to historical changes, shamateurism and semi-professionalism, and the fact that many organisations organise both professional and amateur competitions. Twittenham 15:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Osomec 16:48, 12 June 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. Vegaswikian 05:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Per naming conventions and discussion here. BoojiBoy 00:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Agree. The category description even says, "This is a list of players who played College hockey for Boston College in the NCAA." The original name is misleading. Luna Santin 09:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom and Luna Santin. -- Usgnus 17:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Calsicol 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Dakart 02:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This category should remain for people who attended Boston College. The hockey players can be easily removed. -- M @ r ē ino 17:30, 19 June 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. Vegaswikian 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Death to abbreviations. BoojiBoy 00:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename. Superior clarity. Luna Santin 10:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. David Kernow 11:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 15:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Luna Santin. -- Usgnus 17:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. CalJW 03:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Kleinzach 13:29, 14 June 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.