The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Skulduggery Pleasant ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category only has two articles and an empty category. TTN ( talk) 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. I'm not sure what the minimum number is/should be for a book-series category, but surely it's more than two. Cgingold ( talk) 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 23:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Category:American football coaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Coaches of American football
• Category:American football head coaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Head coaches of American football

Current titles are ambiguous as "American" referring to the type of football being coached could be misinterpreted as the nationality of the person coaching an unspecified type of football. "American football players" ( see cfd) was renamed to Category:Players of American football for the same reason. — CharlotteWebb 20:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename both per nom. Kinda surprising there were any of these left un-renamed. Cgingold ( talk) 00:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename both per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 01:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, and Cgingold. Someone must've gotten lazy after the discussion in February.  :-/ Neier ( talk) 12:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete

Category:Locks on the Hertford Union Canal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Absurd over-categorisation. Category can only ever contain 3 articles, and all 3 articles contain mutual wikilinks. The category is redundant. Mayalld ( talk) 17:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep – it is certainly not absurd to categorise locks by canal (although this perhaps has not yet been done systematically). If not kept, upmerge to the 2 parents: Category:Locks of London, Category:Hertford Union Canal. Occuli ( talk) 19:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I am not sure how much merit there is in having articles on each lock. However if we do for longer canals, they will need categories, but perhaps this can better be done by means of a template. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • A navigation template seems like a fine solution since you would then be able to list them in navigational order. Based on that I would be willing to delete this and replace it with a template. Another option would be a succession template, see I-280 Bridge for an example used for bridges. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I take on board the small category issue. The main reason is that each lock is a member of four low level categories: viz, Category:Buildings and structures in Tower Hamlets, Category:Locks of London, Category:Transport in Tower Hamlets, Category:Geography of Tower Hamlets. Using this small category places them neatly and consistently within the wider categories. The category was created to maintain consistency with Regent's Canal and River Lee Navigation. Small categories may, in themselves, be 'absurd', but they do logically organise and prevent categories like Category:Locks of London being overloaded.

This matter was previously raised on 6 December 2008, and rejected by User:JPG-GR as an invalid CSD - mainly because the current proposer had removed the over-cats - leaving the articles orphaned from any category; which I then fixed. I'm happy to abide by any consensus, but I would suggest that it is not appropriate to leave uncategorised articles; and it would be an aim to maintain some consistency and organisation to the canal system in London. Have WikiProjects London and UK Waterways been notified of this discussion? Kbthompson ( talk) 12:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Reply - the issue was raised at WikiProject_UK_Waterways Derek Andrews ( talk) 10:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - they would fit perfectly well in Category:Hertford Union Canal. But quite frankly I have reservations about the notability of the lock articles. They have no references, and little if any encyclopedic content. My vote would be to merge the photos and lock rises into Hertford Union Canal and delete the individual articles. Derek Andrews ( talk) 13:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Any editor is free to merge material that is not notable into a parent article. That is usually a better approach then taking the article lacking notability to AfD. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is indeed an example of over-categorization. Both of the parent categories have only a few entries, & putting these 3 in both would not overburden them. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment all three articles in the category have been upmerged to the article on the canal. Mayalld ( talk) 21:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Procedural delete as the category's only possible articles have been upmerged to one article. However, even should those articles be recreated and expanded, I do not support the existence of this category. — Goodtimber ( walk/ talk) 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • As noted (above) the articles on the lock have been merged to the canal article. The categories that were contained in the parent cat have been applied to the redirects, so the redirects show up in the appropriate categories. I would suggest that Category:Hertford Union Canal is also now redundant; and will make the necessary adjustments. Thanks Kbthompson ( talk) 01:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Pollutant release inventories and registers. I guess alphabetical always works when we have no other guidance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to either Category:Pollutant release inventories and registers or Category:Pollutant release registers and inventories. I'm not entirely certain this category needs to exist, but assuming it's kept, it needs to be renamed as the current name has several flaws: it uses capitals for a generic term, it has an initialism tacked on to it, and most importantly, it needs to be broadened along the lines I've proposed, as both "inventory" and "register" are used, depending on the country. (Category creator has retired from Wikipedia.) Cgingold ( talk) 14:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Question - and is there a preference as to which it should be? -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 23:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Either name would do the job. I started with "inventories and registers" (i comes before r), but I tacked on the alternate name in case somebody felt that was better for some reason. I guess we could just flip a coin... Cgingold ( talk) 02:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Multiple actions. The word 'conquistadores' will be changed to 'conquistadors'. The combined categories will be split into two. There is still an issue with Category:German conquistadores which I think may result in a split. However in this close it will be a rename and anyone who wishes is free to create Category:German explorers and populate that. If as a result Category:German conquistadors becomes empty it can be nominated for speedy deleteion without coming back here. I think I covered all of the points raised. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Category:Conquistadores
• Category:German conquistadores
• Category:Spanish explorers and conquistadores
• Category:Basque explorers and conquistadores
• Category:Extremaduran explorers and conquistadores
• Nominator's rationale: Rename the above titles where they contain conquistadores, the Spanish plural of conquistador, to 'conquistadors', the much more common English plural. This topic is discussed at Talk:Conquistador. Synchronism ( talk) 09:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Agree to rename for the same reason as the nominator: In the English language, conquistadors is more common than conquistadores. Kman543210 ( talk) 10:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - In addition to the choice of spelling there is another issue: unlike the parent category, 3 of the sub-cats used the formulation "explorers and conquistadores". Should these not be standardized, one way or the other? In this context, I note that Category:Spanish explorers is currently a redirect to Category:Spanish explorers and conquistadores, in contrast to Category:German explorers, which serves as a parent to Category:German conquistadores. Cgingold ( talk) 12:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Notified category creators with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 13:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Agree with all above. Conquistadores should be changed to conquistadors (a specific term for a particular sort of explorer). Per Cgingold the Spanish ones should follow the German example - Category:Spanish explorers and conquistadores should be split into Category:Spanish explorers with a subcat Category:Spanish conquistadors. Occuli ( talk) 13:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• I assume you would rename the Basque and Extremaduran sub-cats to "conquistadors" only, without creating new cats for "explorers"? Cgingold ( talk) 15:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• My naive assumption was that the same rationale would apply to all the subcats, which I assume to contain a mixture of "conquistadors" and non-conquistadors. ( Antoine Thomson d'Abbadie appears to be a Basque non-conquistador.) I concede that I have not thought deeply about Spanish subcats (Catalan conquistadors seem to be missing). Occuli ( talk) 16:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. English Wikipedia should use common English spellings, where they exist. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support Use English language spelling in English Wikipedia. Alansohn ( talk) 03:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support eng is pref 76.66.195.159 ( talk) 05:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• I haven't found any evidence that dropping the "e" is more common, and every type of Google search I found suggests the opposite, even down to the books: I'm getting 3,990 books published in the English language with title containing "conquistadores" and 2,920 with "conquistadors", about 4:3 in favor of the "-es" with the total web search being closer to 4:1. Your gits may vary (as will history curriculum surely—one might argue pedantry but I plainly recall my textbooks using the "-es", so "conquistadors" seems nearly as awkward to me as "benchs" or "wolfs" or "kibbutzes"). I don't think this is as clear cut as suggested, but whatever… — CharlotteWebb 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• I too grew up with "conquistadores", so that would be my personal preference. And it always strikes me as quite odd when completely foreign words -- say from Swahili or Navajo or Farsi -- are pluralized as though they were English words, without the slightest hesitation. That said, I'm not sure my personal preference has a role in deciding which term to use. Cgingold ( talk) 12:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support change to "s" plural. While I find both "s" and "es" in usage, my old OED, which only lists plurals if they are exceptional, does not list the plural for "conquistador", and after an "r" the usual plural is "s". Disclosure, I created one of the categories above with the "es", without giving it a second thought; however, I had been reading Spanish sources. I find that I cannot agree with regard to the union of the categories explorers and conquistadors. While sometimes they are the same, often they are not, even though the term "conquistador" is sometimes used rather loosely. Alexander von Humboldt was certainly a German explorer in South America, but he was not a conquistador. Silvestre Vélez de Escalante was a Spanish explorer, but he was not a conquistador. On the other side of the coin, Diego de Vargas was a conquistador, but he was not an explorer. Because the major conquistadors were also explorers, e.g. Balboa, Hernando Cortez, Francisco Pizarro, the two concepts may be indivisibly linked by some people. I would delink them in the Wikipedia, but I think that that discussion belongs elsewhere. I only mention my opinion to indicate that it is not a foregone conclusion that they ought to be linked. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Actually, this is precisely the time and place for that discussion, which is why a raised those issues in my comment. Although I didn't say so explicitly, Occuli correctly inferred that I would like to see the two concepts split into separate categories. Cgingold ( talk) 12:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Closer comments. If I were to close this today it would be a rename and a split of the last 3 categories. I see support for the split and no opposition. If you are not in favor of splitting those three, speak up now. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename all to English spelling, but remove the word Conquistador from the German category. I would support splitting the rest, but you cannot expect the closing admin to undertake that: it will have to be done manually by one of those who have suggested it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• If Occuli & Bejnar can split the main category, I will take on both of the sub-cats. Cgingold ( talk) 02:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• I'm not entirely sure why the categories were created this way. Creating the new categories should be done uncontroversially and with care; many entries (example: Francisco Vázquez de Coronado) will have to be co-listed. Assuming the category split (in addition to the renaming) can be done with due caution I support it. – Synchronism ( talk) 07:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The arguments of those in favour of deletion were convincing. The primary issue is the POV nature of labelling anything a "war crime" unless a court or tribunal has labelled it as such. The fact that other categories use the word is not a convincing argument to keep; on the contrary, it may be a convincing argument for those to be deleted as well. Add to this the fact that no other war crime category is classed by nationality of the alleged perpetrator, and there is a good case for deletion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:British war crimes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete The convention of Category:War crimes by country would be War crimes in the United Kingdom, however none of the entries took place in the UK so the category can be deleted. (I am going to remove Battle of Culloden as nothing in the article supports its inclusion). Tim! ( talk) 08:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 13:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. All of the current entries are also disputable as actual war crimes. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre did not take place in wartime, whilst uncertainty surrounds the three ships sunk in 1945. None of the articles actually have any mention of being considered war crimes, the category tends towards being a POV. Benea ( talk) 14:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Any war crime activity for any country could be consdered POV. The whole POV argument is facile as everything can be considered POV. Wallie ( talk) 13:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Potentially true, which is why we ensure everything is carefully sourced to ensure we report rather than offer our our opinions. None of the articles you've added to your category contain the claim of being a war crime, let alone the reliably sourced one. Benea ( talk) 05:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per both - I'm sure this is a recreation of a previously deleted category. Johnbod ( talk) 15:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep although I will probably lose out here, as no one thinks that any British person ever did a war crimes. However, here is another example... [1] The category should stay. If some of the articles in the category are disputed as being war crimes, thats another matter. Wallie ( talk) 13:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Please assume good faith. It doesn't help your position to state that "no one" in Wikipedia is capable of making a rational and informed decision on this question. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Wallie. The whole idea of sorting "war crimes" is very POV. Should we include the current War in Iraq? Who says what is a war crime and what isn't? That being said, if we are going to keep others, we should keep this one as well.-- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 01:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Part of the point of the nom is that we would title it by 'war crimes committed in country x'. I have no doubt that British soldiers could be capable of war crimes unfortunately. But of the articles in the category, one is not applicable because it did not take place in wartime, and so has never been called a war crime, the remaining three articles refer to the sinking of the 3 ships sunk in 1945, the events of which are still obscure, but the case is certainly not arbitrary enough to warrant a clear 'this was a war crime' in the article, nor the slapping on at the personal POV of category 'British war crimes' by that category's creator. Can you address the reasons in the nom rather than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Ultimately the term war crime is a carefully defined one in international law and is ruled upon in a court of law, so that is who says whether an incident is a war crime. Once the category is emptied of any POV claims rather than sourced articles, it is empty, let alone if it was emptied of those that did not take place in the United Kingdom. No, the War in Iraq would not be in this category because of the very POV nature of the claim, a specific incident, such as the killing of Hashim Ibrahim Awad would be in Category:War crimes in Iraq if charges of war crimes were brought. Benea ( talk) 05:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 00:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Players with NFL and CFL careers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is a non-notable intersection of two different sports league. They are the only important professional American football leagues in the world and have overwhelmingly similar rules. Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 01:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

*Keep: The fact that they are "the only important professional [North] American football leagues in the world" would seem to me to be a rationale for retaining not deleting. Only a small number of elite CFL players actually play in both leagues (which do have rather different rules, for what it's worth) so it's not like there's going to be a tremendous overlap. That said, I do think we may want to tighten the criteria for inclusion in the category, so that only players who actually managed to play in NFL games are included. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Comment A very large number of former NFL players move to Canada, usually because they could not make a NFL franchise. Just as an example, I count at least 12 players on this years Toronto Argonauts roster that have played in both leagues. Is playing in both leagues a defining characteristic? If it is not, then WP:OC says that we should delete.-- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 01:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Right, the question is whether playing in both leagues is indeed a Trivial intersection. I obviously don't think it is, but we'll see. The fact that there are 12 or so on the Argos roster, as you say, might be another reason to tighten the criteria to players who got in an NFL game, if this category is retained. A lot of CFLers were drafted by an NFL team, got invited to camp, made it onto a practice roster, but few managed to actually have an NFL career, per the category title. And that's where, for me, this is a defining characteristic: players who actually made it up to the show. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete trivial intersection, and can be inferred by the categories for each team a player has played for. Reso lute 03:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep, not a trivial intersection, gameplay is significantly different in the two forms of football, some players and coaches cannot adapt. 76.66.195.159 ( talk) 06:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• And nothing of this statement can be determined by such a category. You are arguing a pretty flimsy strawman. Reso lute 06:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment I do not think changing it to players who actually played in the NFL and CFL would be very helpful, as the vast majority of people of a NFL roster play during the season, if only on special teams. Most to all of the 12+ players on the Argonauts had NFL careers with playing time, including all of the quarterbacks. It still runs the same problem. Does a category for football players who played in both the Premiership in England and La Liga in Spain sound just as trivial? I see keeping this as a bad precedent for creating the intersections of every sports league in the world with every other.-- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 16:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

  Is it more analogous to people who played both Rugby Union and Rugby League? (Similar games but with very significant differences.) This has Category:Dual code rugby internationals (which I consider non-trivial) and there is also Category:Footballers who switched code (rather more tenuous, perhaps). Occuli ( talk) 18:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I think the rugby league/union scenario is a good parallel. PK T(alk) 20:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The NFL and CFL are similar games with insignificant rule differences. The major difference between leagues is the talent levels.-- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 02:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep A meaningful and defining intersection of athletes who participated in the two leagues. Alansohn ( talk) 03:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I'm leaning towards delete unless someone can explain why this should not be expand to every league pairing. How about NFL and CFL and AFL and XFL? What exactly about this pair makes this defining for players in any way, shape or form? Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

*I now see the crux of the issue is whether there are significant enough rule differences to make this intersection non-trivial, and I'm no longer sure this is the case. Therefore changing my keep vote, above, to Neutral. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'm getting off the fence here, in the hopes that this will speed things along. My earlier objection to deleting was based on a poor understanding of the notability rules for categories, and I see now that this is the very definition of trivial intersection. As has been pointed out by others, were we to have a CFL/NFL players category we'd be opening the door to NFL/XFL, CFL/Arena League, and so on, ad nauseam. The rules changes between the two leagues are simply not great enough to represent a qualitative difference: it isn't like someone playing two different sports. The only qualitative difference in this case is the generally inferior talent level in the CFL. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Vegaswikian. Outside of the top-tier franchise players, most professional sportspeople do spend at least some time in lower-level leagues, particularly in seasons where free agency is a bear market. This can be interesting data but not enough so to justify the clutter of a triangularly increasing number of "played in Foo-league and Bar-league" categories. This is a poster case for allowing automatic category intersection to assist those interested in studying this kind of trend. — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the CFL is not a lower level league. 76.66.195.159 ( talk) 05:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I'm a big CFL fan, but it is a lower-level league, in terms of talent level, money, attendance, etc. (though not excitement!) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Comment the CFL is the top professional league of Canadian Football, it is equivalent to the top professional league of American Football, ie. the NFL. Money and attendence have no bearing, and talent is only peripherally related. If you look at North American Soccer, according to FIFA, the MSL is considered a certain "level", even if play in the league doesn't seem to be of such a quality. 76.66.195.159 ( talk) 05:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not defining. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non-defining. I like the CFL as much as the next Canadian, but it's an obvious truth that any CFL player that is good enough to play in the NFL almost invariably will go to the NFL. (See Warren Moon, who was a CFL legend before the NFL finally discovered him.) In that sense, it is a "lower-level" league, if for no other reason than salary. Players would be crazy to stick around in a league that pays around $50,000 instead of going to the NFL where they can easily make ten times that or more. Occasionally the migration happens in reverse, but usually that's because the player is washed up in the NFL (see Doug Flutie). But it's impossible for me to claim with a straight face that they are leagues on par with each other and that the only substantive difference are 3 downs vs. 4 and other rules differences. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify. I think that the information would be MUCH better presented as a List of football players with careers in the NFL and CFL or some such, with Name, teams, positions, years, and notes. I would even enjoy reading such a list. — Goodtimber ( walk/ talk) 22:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. There are a hell of a lot of inaccuracies being flung about here about the status of the CFL, quality of players, and differences between Canadian and American football that have nothing to do with the category discussion. I suggest that discussion focus on the the appropriateness of the category itself. DoubleBlue ( talk) 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think you need to take offence—users are just trying their best to explain their positions. All these factors may be legitimate considerations, especially the relationship between the two leagues. You may feel the CFL is not a "lower tier" league than the NFL, and it's officially not, of course, but it is a very common perception (and for good reason, in my opinion). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to parents; placed in manual work queue which anyone is welcome to perform. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Geek holidays to Category:its two current parents

Nominator's rationale: Merge - to Category:Unofficial observances and Category:Secular holidays. It seems rather difficult if not impossible to figure out whether a holiday is celebrated "mainly by geeks" and there is some WP:BLP issue in labeling those who observe these categories as geeks, which remains a pejorative. An article could probably be written on the topic and a list generated with references but the bare cat is probably not a good idea. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment maybe, but also Fan holidays could be more appropriate. but i also dont think geek is any longer pejorative due to its reclamation. (ie: geek squad) 99.140.188.137 ( talk) 20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 23:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Popular support for the European Union ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, this is a meaningless category. It has an extremely vague scope and purpose per its name. - SSJ  ☎ 00:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete: A meaningless category, unpopulated since June, for heaven's sake. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Seems like way too broad of a scope and not very specific. Kman543210 ( talk) 10:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete empty category unpopulated for over four days.- choster ( talk) 05:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Hi Choster. While I agree that this is a meaningless category which should be deleted as soon as "process" will allow, how do you know it's been unpopulated for four days? I've never found a way to prove how long this or any other category has been empty. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Use the page history of Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories. That being said, yes, this has been empty for more than 4 days (which is how I found this discussion). XfD deletion is preferable in this case, however, as C1 deletions don't bar recreation, so I won't speedy delete this. VegaDark ( talk) 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply