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 15:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Category:Maps of Europe already exists and contains all the relevant maps. -- Adam78 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Redundant, Category:Maps of Europe is a better name. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• As per Who. Pavel Vozenilek 19:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as {{ categoryredirect}}. — Insta ntnood 14:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was listify -- Kbdank71 15:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

This would also apply to the sub-cats Category:AFI 100 Movies, Category:AFI 100 Laughs, Category:AFI 100 Thrills, Category:AFI 100 Passions and Category:AFI 100 Songs

This information is better suited to a list, and the films selected by the AFI are already listed in the articles AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies and 100 Years Series. It is also excessive categorisation - Casablanca, just as a fairly random example, is currently classified in 10 categories (3 of them AFI Lists), and is eligible for more; Schindler's List is in 14.

More importantly, the AFI list is not an appropriate way to categorise films. Firstly, it's extremely US-centric. There are "Best film" lists produced by other national institutes and film organisations, including the BFI 100 Films list and others. There are also "best of" lists chosen by filmmakers and critics, including the respected Sight and Sound poll which has been running for more than 40 years. Wikepedia shouldn't give preferential treatment to one such set of lists.

These lists are also necessarily POV; they are based on the opinions of AFI members that these films are somehow "good" or "noteworthy"; and a subjective judgement of that kind isn't an appropriate way to classify a subject in an encyclopedia. JW 20:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Much better suited as list (will never change, list will show ranking, etc.) I wouldn't want to see all the category for all the "Top x" lists that a movie like Casablanca is on. -- JamesTeterenko 20:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename and Relocate. AFI isn't any more (or less) POV than AMPAS, BAFTA, Golden Globe, or any other insider-award-based category of films. If you eliminate AFI, you need to dump all of them. 12.73.196.131 01:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'm not suggesting we eliminate the articles on the AFI lists; only that it's inappropriate to categorise films based on the opinion of the AFI, especially as we don't do that for the BAFTAS, Golden Globes or any of the others. JW 12:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. I agree we shouldn't have a category for every list some guy with a website comes up with, but these are significant lists from an important film organization which have received a good deal of media coverage. As noted above, no more POV than the Oscars, which have categories as well. Gamaliel 02:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment - But the AFI lists are no more significant than any of the others, and we don't categorise on the basis of the BFI list. Who's to decide which lists are significant and which aren't? These may receive a lot of media attention in the US but for the rest of the world they have no more significance than the lists of the Australian or Bulgarian Film Institutes. The point is we shouldn't give preference to the AFI just because it's American. And there's no need for a category anyway when the information already appears as a list. JW 12:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• We decide which lists are significant and which aren't just like we decide which subjects are worthy of an encyclopedia article and which aren't and just like we decide which information to include in an encyclopedia article and which to exclude. A simple decision like this shouldn't baffle us. And we should not give a preference to the AFI over the BFI just because it's American, but because it is more significant, notable, and famous. Gamaliel 17:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• It is only more famous in America; the AFI certainly isn't more significant or notable than the BFI. The point is not that the lists aren't noteworthy (and they already have their own articles), but that they are not an appropriate way to categorise a subject. JW 20:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Please. I certainly don't think Wikipedia should be America-centric, but we shouldn't swing so far in the other direction that we indulge in some anti-elitist fantasy that the probably non-existant Bulgarian Film Institute is just as notable or important or famous as the AFI. And I don't see at all how this is not an acceptable subject for a category for the reasons I've already stated. Gamaliel 09:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Sorry, when I said BFI I actually meant the British Film Institute. JW 14:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Well, in that case you're correct and if the British BFI published similar lists I'd probably think they'd be a cool idea for a category too. Gamaliel 17:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Listify, this is not category-style information. - Splash 00:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Listify. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:32, 1 August 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 15:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm not aware of any precedent for categories like this for English surnames, and if there is such a precedent then I don't think this is a particularly useful category anyway. Agentsoo 19:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Murder on the Orient Express. Precedent set, see this Cfd for previous listings and relevant previous discussions. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not valid. Punkmorten 12:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Category title does not make any sense and there is no explanation what else is to be included beyond the one article: or is intent to make Agatha Christie into a category unto herself? Past discussion referenced by "Who" suggests idea may be to create a genealogical category, but this is pretty weak when you have only one name to start, and that is a married name. Mr. Christie isn't even listed! A geneology for Agatha Christie would follow from her birth-surname, Miller, and that could be useful for inclusion in her article, but it makes absolutely no sense under the present title and unless there is a primary category of Category:Notable Persons' Geneologies - and enough effort and data to fill it. 12.73.194.155 23:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty and redundant. Agentsoo 18:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete well its empty, wish I knew what it's redundant with, other than below. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty and redundant. Agentsoo 18:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy d Duplicate title with bad caps is speedy, isn't it? ∞ Who ?¿? 22:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Maybe a legit (if mistitled) category some day, but we have no articles for it at present, and I doubt we will in the near future. Perhaps it should be restored when we do. Agentsoo 18:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy d dup of Category:Arabic calligraphy and bad caps. (somebody slap me if these aren't speedy candidates, it seems they would fit the speedy rename, but dup exists.) ∞ Who ?¿? 22:37, 26 July 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 14:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty cat which is likely to remain empty. Hard to get famous without leaving the house, and I should know. Agentsoo 18:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete There could be some celebs that have this condition, but they are not listed, and must not be notable for it. Recreate if needed at another time. Then create Category:Agoraphobic Wikipedians for Agentsoo and myself ;-p meant as joke!. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 19:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Don't Delete There are a number of celebs who really are afraid to appear in public, and Agentsoo is quick to point out the category is (now) empty and does not mention he/she was the one who emptied it. It should also be noted the category has only existed for a short while, which is the reason it hasn't received a lot of entries yet.-- Firsfron 04:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keeping cat because it is not empty, and Firsfron brings up valid points. -- Kbdank71 14:57, 2 August 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 soft redirect -- Kbdank71 14:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty dupe of Category:America Online. Agentsoo 18:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment I really wish we had cat redirs. Maybe put a soft redirect here instead? Discussion on Category titles seems to be leaning towards common naming. Just a thought. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Soft redirect ∞ Who ?¿? 09:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Agentsoo. Such trivial problems could be perhaps be done automatically to save time. Pavel Vozenilek 19:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Soft redirect per Who. It'll only be recreated otherwise. - Splash 00:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Doesn't seem much point in a category that can only ever contain one article. Agentsoo 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think it would be useful if all the articles ever used were kept there, for historic purposes, a list could be used, but would grow very long. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Ungrammatical dupe of Category:Spanish people. Agentsoo 17:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. Punkmorten 12:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Suspend pending the debate at Wikipedia:Category titles. - Splash 00:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Suspend per Splash. ∞ Who ?¿? 08:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Neither proposal at the category titles debate would also this cat. siafu 13:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Deleting cat, as the category titles debate is centering around "Spanish people" vs "People of Spain". Plus, it's empty. -- Kbdank71 14:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

This article is an unused duplicate of the more appropriate Santa Cruz Mountains Wineries category. Delete. Gateman1997 17:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator. Pavel Vozenilek 19:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 14:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Unlike the entry below, this category does not contain list articles. It contains articles about wars in Canada, and the name is a misunderstanding of the distinction between lists and categories. The categorization should also be checked; it came to my attention because it included Lord Dunmore's War, which was not in Canada. (I am not sure what the name should be, but this one is just wrong.) Septentrionalis 17:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Inappropriatly named. Also, it is too general of a name to be clear on the topic. Any situation where there was a disagreement in Canada could be lumped into this category. -- JamesTeterenko 19:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 13:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Yeah, it is not the category above which should be renamed, but several subcats in it. A "list of country-related topics" is, well, a list of topics by country. But a look at most subcats in it by the name of "Lists of Foo-related topics" actually contain articles which are "lists on a topic", and not "list of topics", and should be moved to the parent category, Category:Lists of country-related topics, which contains subcats named "Foo-related lists", the correct category name for such a usage. I would think all of the categories involved would require this renaming.-- Huaiwei 14:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Confusion. I'm not sure what you want to do. -- Kbdank71 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: For example Category:lists of New Zealand-related topics contains one article: the list Prime minister of New Zealand. I take it that Huaiwei would prefer the category to be Category:New Zealand-related lists or some such. Some of the sister categories already are. Septentrionalis 17:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Yes, Pmanderson has gotten my point. Thanks for clarifying for me.-- Huaiwei 09:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment concur with Septentrionalis's assessment, unless Huaiwei clarifies further. Iff so, I think they should be renamed, to "Foo-related lists". ∞ Who ?¿? 22:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• The offending cats each seem to have only 1 or 2 articles in them, often related to the head of state. Those articles include a list, but are not actually lists in the usual sense on WP. I would suggest deleting any cats that do not actually contain lists, and keeping the others. Once there is a handful of lists for the country, the cat can be recreated by an enthusiastic editor. - Splash 00:20, 28 July 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 13:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty, marked as CfD on July 23 by User:Renata3 but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 13:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep and populate. — Insta ntnood 14:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Iff suitable articles can be placed now, otherwise delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: there is only one language there (well the second one is English). Renata3 13:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • In that case, listify. ∞ Who ?¿? 08:52, 30 July 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 13:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty, marked as CfD on July 23 by User:Renata3 but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 13:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep and populate. — Insta ntnood 14:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Iff suitable articles can be placed now, otherwise delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

There can be only one. -- Beland 01:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category:LGBT identities. Unless we have a reasonable number of articles on specific identities, Category:LGBT identities is at least misnamed, and also redundant. siafu 02:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge to LGBT identities - less room for misunderstandings under this name. -- AlexR 21:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Category:LGBT identities. Category overly specific, subcategory of the other. "LGB identities" is also overly specific. Amicuspublilius 22:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete them both and MERGE with Category:Sexual orientation - The distinctions are unclear. Are subcategories really necessary? -- Samuel Wantman 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• That category is supposed by some to explicitly cover transgender too - which is neither a sexual orientation nor a sexual identity. -- AlexR 05:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• I'm not following. Both Transgender and Category:Sexual orientation are in the category LGBT. What is wrong with that? (BTW, Category:LGBT identities is a subcategory of Category:Sexual orientation). -- Samuel Wantman 09:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge Category:LGBT identities with Category:Sexual orientation. As Samuel said, the distinctions are unclear. Additionally, this category sets up a heterosexual/non-heterosexual binary that just doesn't make sense. - Seth Mahoney 18:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Category:LGBT identities. Category:Sexual orientation and identity covers that subject matter just as well, while also covering things that are identities but aren't necessarily LGBT. (I changed my vote on 21:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC), assuming that's legal; before I'd voted to merge both with Category:Sexual orientation.) -- Inkburrow 04:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge with LGBT identities. Axon ( talk| contribs) 10:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• I originally created Category:LGBT identities to resolve the concerns of a user who objected to the inclusion of transgender related topics in Category:Sexual orientation and identity. The intention was for "LGBT identities" to replace the other category, but I wasn't able to do it all at once; I simply forgot to get back to it afterward to finish the job. Much of the LGBT category space actually needs to be made much more trans-inclusive, so I'd personally be more in favour of merging into LGBT identities rather than out of it, but I agree that it should be one or the other -- that was my original intention. Bearcat 03:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The only problem I have with LGBT identities is that it sets the system up as hetero/non-hetero. What about something like Category: Sexual and gender identities or something, that isn't non-hetero specific? - Seth Mahoney 18:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm hoping this discussion can come up with an entire hierarchy for the subject matter with clear distinctions. This could involve creating new categories as well as deleting and renaming existing ones. I'm finding these category by category discussions are difficult because I don't yet see the big picture for organizing the entire field (what-ever that field might be called). -- Samuel Wantman 04:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I agree with Seth Mahoney; I'm not seeing why there should only be a category for LBGT identities, and not identities in general. Making things worse, I think, is that LGBT identities doesn't even set the system up as hetero/non-hetero: it sets it up as LGBT/hetero. Things which fall into neither camp (like zoophilia or asexuality) wouldn't belong, despite being identities. Inkburrow 21:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• NOTE: I'm giving this another 7 days since there is no consensus as of yet, and I know this is a subject many people feel strongly about. -- Kbdank71 13:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge Category:LGBT identities → Category:Sexual orientation and identity. Reasoning, although there are slang/common terms cat'd here, they seem to be more related to a scientific schema. For example ( Androphilia, Anthropological classification of homosexuality, Asexuality, Atypical gender role, Autosexuality) are all scientific related terms, and Category:Sexual orientation and identity is better suited for this type of categorization as it is not narrowed by just identities. It is also a child of Category:LGBT which can be easily found using the LGBT searches. ∞ Who ?¿? 23:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 13:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Should be Category:C*-algebras to be consistent with the convention adopted across C*-algebra and the various other articles in the category. — Blotwell 07:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. Yes, just do it. I think a lighter-weight process would have been to bring this up on the category talk page. And/or the WP:WPM talk page. The whole cfr bit seems heavy and excessively formal ... this won't be a contentious issue. linas 17:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 13:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Should be Category:Star Wars computer and video games. - Sean Curtin 06:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, rename as sugested to conform with rest of the categories under the Category:Computer and video games branch. -- Sherool 00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename, should match K1Bond007 03:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename -- to Category:Star Wars computer and video games. Longhair | Talk 04:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 13:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Basque and Iberian mythology to fit with category naming convention and with the name of its one subcategory. - Sean Curtin 05:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge -- Kbdank71 13:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Unnecessary subcategorization of Category:Mountains of India. WikiProject Mountains does not divide mountains using a technical distinction between peak and mountain. There are differing opinions on what determines a mountain versus a peak so it's best not to divide mountains up using a possibly contentious distinction. I contacted the category creator a day or two after it was created and he replied that it was okay for it to be deleted if considered "egregious" ( discussion). RedWolf 05:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Mountains and delete. - Sean Curtin 05:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• As per Sean Curtin. Pavel Vozenilek 16:36, 26 July 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 suspend until category titles discussion completes -- Kbdank71 13:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to follow convention of Category:Art by nationality, Category:Artists by nationality, and Category:Culture by country

• Category:Art of Egypt to Category:Egyptian art
• Category:Art of France to Category:French art
• Category:Art of Germany to Category:German art
• Category:Art of Holland to Category:Dutch art
• Category:Art of Hong Kong to Category:Hong Kong art
• Category:Art of Italy to Category:Italian art
• Category:Art of Mexico to Category:Mexican art
• Category:Art of Russia to Category:Russian art
• Category:Art of Spain to Category:Spanish art

>>sparkit| TALK<< 05:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed format causes ambiguity issues. RedWolf 05:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Suspend pending discussion at Wikipedia:Category titles. Maurreen 05:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Indeed! Suspend ... or nevermind. >>sparkit| TALK<< 05:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose or Suspend. -- Kbdank71 13:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose or, equivalently, suspend pending discussion at Wikipedia:Category titles per Maurreen. - Splash 00:20, 28 July 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 13:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Currently has one article; doesn't seem to have potential for many more. tregoweth 02:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, seems like a useless category. Punkmorten 12:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, agree with Punkmorten. Pavel Vozenilek 19:13, 27 July 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.