Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 19 March 21 >

March 20[edit]

Category:American drinking establishments to Category:Drinking establishments in the United States[edit]

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. Syrthiss 16:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match its co-categories in Category:Buildings and structures in the United States. Scranchuse 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 17:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 20:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This proposal would be a new form in Category:Drinking establishments. Since there does not appear to be a standard for that cat, this may not be an issue. Vegaswikian 02:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Drinking establishments are buildings, so that convention applies. Osomec 19:38, 27 March 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.

Category:Young Pioneers to Category:Young Pioneers of the Soviet Union[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. Syrthiss 16:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only articles about Young Pioneers of the USSR are in that category. Articles about Pioneer organizations of other countries are in the parent Category:Pioneer Movement. Cmapm 22:44, 20 March 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.

Category:Great Britain at the Olympics to Category:United Kingdom at the Olympics[edit]

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. Syrthiss 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category includes articles on the ‘Great Britain and Ireland’ teams of pre-1924. Thus, the settlement reached at the previous cfr discussion, whereby the category is left erroneously named, but including a solitary sentence of ‘explanation’ that only confuses further, is unsuitable. The new name ('United Kingdom at the Olympics') would still accommodate for the articles on UK team that took part in 1924 (and perhaps later, but I am not entirely sure when the BOA changed the name) under the new ‘Great Britain’, and for the subsequent teams that have competed as ‘Great Britain and Northern Ireland’. Bastin8 22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This would be less accurate with regard to more recent games, which are more numerous and will continue to increase while the other group will not. The early articles can be places in the Irish category too. Scranchuse 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Scranchuse. Worldwide English-language recognition of the team is as "Great Britain", not "United Kingdom". On British Olympic Committee's own website, the reference is to "Team GB": [1]. -- Mareklug talk 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. But I have figured out a good solution to all this whining for my own editing—I simply don't add any British categories, under any name. Gene Nygaard 01:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. despite the BOC's use of "GB" (for their reasons to keep the name more understandable to a non-British audience or whatever, where in fact they add confusion). Northern Ireland residents have represented and continue to be present on the team and its naming here should reflect this as other naming of pages on UK content do Mayumashu 07:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Team GB' is a marketing name (the reason that they keep that name: financing). The current official team name is 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', and the name has been that since 1948 at the latest (and possibly as early as 1928, after the country was renamed from UK of GB&I in 1927); see [2], [3], [4], etc.
One can either use the name of the country or the name of the team. Since three different names have been used for the team, one can use either three separate categories or one category named after the country, i.e. United Kingdom. Since nobody's suggesting the former, the latter is the only sensible option. That is also in line with the practice for Germany, for example. Currently, the name is just nonsensical, since the team name 'Great Britain' was used only for a short period between the World Wars, and, as Scranchuse unwittingly points out, the 'Great Britain' group will tend towards insignificance as time goes on. Bastin8 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current Wikipedia usage is favoring in this instance the so-called common name vs. the theoretically complete/official name. Your nomination does neither, inventing a name for the team that is simply never used. The situation is analogous with the naming of the article Rhode Island. Few people make use of the fact that Rhode Island's current official name is The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Your concern has already been addressed by the informational sentence included on the category page: The United Kingdom competes as Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics, and prior to Irish independence competed as Great Britain and Ireland. You did say that you find this sentence confusing the issue further, but it does admirably succeed in providing an exposition of the current official name and the past official name, and it does name the United Kingdom as the corresponding country. Categories are there to help navigation, and this one, named Category:Great Britain at the Olympics, does the job, as long as most every sports announcer and newspaper in the world refer to the team as "Great Britain"; this is the name that Wikipedia users will most likely search under when looking up the sports results at the Olympics -- Mareklug talk 19:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that your Rhode Island analogy is apt, you didn't stop to check why Rhode Island's constitutional name is rarely used. It's because it's prohibitively long, which is exactly why I'm not proposing 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. I'm proposing 'United Kingdom', which, last time that I checked, was the same number of words as 'Great Britain'.
Furthermore, unlike 'Rhode Island', 'Great Britain' is not the only name that is in common informal use. Even when referring to the Olympics, 'United Kingdom' is used by many millions of Britons; 'Team GB' is used by the BOA; 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' is used by the BBC for TV captions and the like; and I'm sure that 'Britain' and 'England' are used casually by millions of gormless morons around the world.
If the only argument for 'Great Britain' is the frequency of the mistake, that is no argument at all. I'm sure that you know that, in cases of a mistake being common, it is Wikipedia policy to have a redirect, not to repeat that mistake to comfort the ignorant by pretending that they're right. Thus, if one types in the wrong name, it redirects to the correct one, but if one navigates through categories, one will understand the entire contents of the category by its name. Heck, maybe those that are educated, so know the difference between the two terms, will choose not to go to the category simply because you insist that it must have am imprecise name. How's that for encyclopaedic? Bastin8 21:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sometimes taxonomic arguments are simply irrelevant, as is the case here. "Great Britain" is the clearly uniquely used name by the International Olympic Committee. It is the name used in medal tables on the IOC's web site: [5]. If "Great Britain" is precise enough for the IOC public medal records, it is appropriate for this category name at Wikipedia, which after all reflects the name in official/public/widespread use. The proposed renaming to "United Kingdom" would, if anything, only serve to confuse and misplace this category alphabetically. Please remember that we are concerned here with the name of the team, even if it is a political or geographic misnomer. -- Mareklug talk 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As stated above the term "United Kingdom" is not used in this context. Piccadilly 21:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Wikipedia should report reality, not the "official" marketing guff which all organisations are guaranteed to push out. The fact is that this is, and was, a UK team. I find the removal of Northern Ireland from the name to be particularly misleading, and somewhat insulting. When/if Northern Ireland athletes are excluded from the team, then Wikipedia can drop them from the title. United Kingdom refers to both Great Britain and Ireland (pre-1927) and Great Britain and Northern Ireland (post-1927), therefore it is the most sensible title for the parent category; however, the categories and articles about each separate games should keep the long form, to make explicit the constitution of each team. --Mais oui! 22:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The use of "United Kingdom" as a shortened version to refer to UK of GB&NI is a neologism, something that has cropped up mostly in the last half-century. Your claim that "United Kingdom" should also be used standing alone to refer to the former "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is preposterous to anyone living outside Great Britain (the island only), and to most of them on that island as well. Gene Nygaard 23:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom and nom's subsequent comments. A UKoGB&NI topic and should be named accordingly. What the IOC or advertising and PR drones might think is a matter of total irrelevance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For the simple and undeniable fact that currently Northern Ireland is specifically being left out by calling it Great Britain. This is very misleading, especially when the Republic of Ireland category is named Ireland at the Olympics, insinuating that that it represents the whole of the geographical island of Ireland, and not just the Republic. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comments below. The name Republic of Ireland is questionable when referring to the team that is sent by the Olympic Committee of Ireland for the reasons I outline below about the effect of some sports being organised on an all-Ireland level. Also, Category:Ireland at the Olympics also includes material relating to the period before Ireland became a republic (i.e before 1949) so the name would be questionable on this ground too. Valiantis 19:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The name should definately be UK as that implies GB (England, Scotland, Wales) and NI. GB simply misses out Northern Ireland. The fact the team is often styled teamGB in real life is misleading but most people involved know the difference. On wikipedia I believe there is always a strive for accuracy.--Technik 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that in 1924, Ireland competed as Ireland, though at the time it was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which is different from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Gene Nygaard 18:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland was not part of the United Kingdom in 1924. The "Irish Free State" was founded in 1922. Valiantis 19:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose strongly. This came up before. The team is called Great Britain. United Kingdom is specifically incorrect as the GB Team includes athletes from territories such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man that are not part of the United Kingdom. The team that competes at the Olympics under the name Great Britain does not represent any specific nation state; it represents a group of national sporting bodies. As for the issue of the island of Ireland, some sports are organised in the Islands of the North Atlantic along an all(island of) Great Britain and and all (island of) Ireland line; others are organised on a UK line and a Republic of Ireland line. The result of this is that a Northern Irish competitor in one sport may compete for Ireland at the Olympics, in a different sport he may compete for Great Britain - the deciding factor is whether his sport is organised on an all-Ireland basis or whether it is organised separately in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Valiantis 15:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Valiantis, what was the outcome of your discussions with the British Olympic Association during the last vote? Stu ’Bout ye! 16:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was just coming here to add some content regarding this. I emailed the BOA via their website and received a response but when I emailed back asking if I could have their permission to quote directly from the email I got no further response. However, I think it's appropriate for me to paraphrase their response - the information is pretty much on their website though not in a clear form. What was said - and this is why I maintain that the name United Kingdom is completely inaccurate in this context - is broadly the points I raised above: - the team generally styles itself Great Britain or "Team GB"; the team is made up of sportsmen and sportswomen who compete under the auspices of their individual sports' national governing bodies which are affiliated to the BOA; in some sports the local governing body for that sport has responsibility for territories that do not form part of the United Kingdom (e.g the Channel Islands); in a minority of sports (hockey is one example) the Great Britain team does not include Northern Irish players as these sports are organised on an all-Ireland basis [6], so, for example, Northern Irish hockey players would compete for Ireland at the Olympics (though an individual NI player who was a member of an English, Scottish, or Welsh club could play for GB on that basis!). I think we have to be clear that national Olympic teams are not representatives of a state, they are representatives of a National Olympic Committee (NOC) which may or may not correspond to a state (so for example Puerto Rico [7] and Guam [8] have there own NOCs even though they are not states but only overseas territories of the US). The IOC's own site states "Although most NOCs are from nations, the IOC also recognises independent territories, commonwealths, protectorates and geographical areas." [9]. I think Great Britain might be described as a geographical area in this context. I agree the name is contentious, but it is the name used within the Olympic movement. Valiantis 19:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The term "Great Britain", in this context, is misleading. The team represents a country, not an island. That country is the United Kingdom. --Mal 16:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per my comments above, the team does not represent a country. Valiantis 19:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The team does represent a country. The Olympics represents countries from all over the world - that's what its about: countries competing against eachother in sporting events. The country that is represented by the team is explained in the official website. --Mal 07:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know how to explain this any more clearly than I already have done. The team that is sent to the Olympics under the auspices of the British Olympic Committee is composed primarily of people who are citizens of the United Kingdom, but it can also include those who are citizens of territories outside the UK such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Therefore the team called "Great Britain" does not represent any country, but above all it is not the team of the United Kingdom. Valiantis 15:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know how to explain this any clearer: the body represents the interests of British citizens and of the four national regions of the United Kingdom: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. This is mentioned on the website. Everyone, except a few people adding comments and votes here it seems, understands what the team represents. Thus, my assertion that the name should be changed has become even stronger: the article needs to be renamed so as to avoid any confusion from, for example, yourself. --Mal 20:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose As Valiantis has made clear the proposed name is misleading in several ways. Bhoeble 17:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I think anyone sufficiently moved to vote strongly either way on this is probably missing the point that neither "UK" or "Great Britain" is completely correct in terms of the geopolitical origins of competitors (the Isle of Man for instance is in neither GB nor the UK, but it is in the British Isles), and that the name "Team GB" is actually from time to time debated as being nonsensical even here in England. Furtheremore, this move seems to be supported most strongly by people from Northern Ireland who feel that the current category names denies their country/province's contribution to Team GB, and who a I t argue against that. I'm seeing good arguments from both sides, however, e.g. the nominator and User:Scranchuse, so I'm abstaining (which is, I guess, the same as saying the status quo will have to do). --kingboyk 18:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For reference, the previous proposal I mention (which was to rename to Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics which is less egregious than the current proposal, but still not correct) can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 16#Category:Great Britain at the Olympics to Category:Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics. Valiantis 19:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've just browsed through the BOC's last annual report and the only place where the phrase "United Kingdom" is used is a reference to "United Kingdom law" in the audit report. Choalbaton 22:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which just goes to show how pig ignorant the BOC are: there is no such thing as "United Kingdom law": there is English law, Scots law and Northern Ireland law. --Mais oui! 15:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are factually correct in this; however the term "United Kingdom law" is often used to refer to those laws that are made by the United Kingdom parliament that apply across the whole of the state. It is also used officially in Acts of Parliament, for example here in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (where it is in fact defined as "any enactment or rule of law applying in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland"). So perhaps the BOA are less ignorant than you believe. Valiantis 01:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you accusing the BOC of writing their own audit report? That would be punishable with serious jail time I should think. ReeseM 03:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support It should be about the country which competes not just the main Island. If you want to use a name which most people think of when they see the Union Flag why not just use England at the Olympics? Wikipedia should report the reality of the make-up of the team, although I recognise that there term United Kingdom does exclude people from the Chanel Islands, IOM (as does Great Britain). I would prefer the term used by the BBC, but that was dismissed before. - theKeith 15:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I will again draw your attention to my comments re: the representation of people from Northern Ireland at the Olympics. In some sports - hockey is an example - the national organising body in the island of Ireland is a 32-county wide body and is affiliated to the Olympic Committee of Ireland; in other sports, there are separate bodies in the Republic and in Northern Ireland and/or the UK as a whole. Dependent on the sport, a person from Northern Ireland might compete for "Great Britain" or they might compete for "Ireland". The term United Kingdom is never used in relation to the team that the BOA sends to the Olympics and it would be incorrect politically to do so; that is why it is an incorrect name for this category. The term "Great Britain" is regularly used by the organisation that sends the team and by the IOC; that is why it is the correct name for this cat, even if it is geographically inaccurate (which I happily concede). Valiantis 15:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Yes hockey is organised on an all-Ireland basis, but how many other sports are? None that I know of, but I admit I may be wrong. SO that's one sport out of dozens. But the basic point here is that as things stand, the two categories are Ireland at the Olympics and Great Britain at the Olympics, which is misleading and completely omits Northern Ireland. It also will lead ill-informed people to believe that people from Northern Ireland compete for the Republic of Ireland. This is true in a few isolated cases, but not on the whole. Say what you want about what the media or even the BOA (whose answer was completely inconclusive) calling it GB, Wikipedia should be about representing the facts accurately. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want to represent the facts accurately then using the term United Kingdom in the name of this category is clearly not correct. The only fact that I can see here is that the team that competes at the Olympics calls itself "Great Britain". You may not like the fact that this name omits Northern Ireland, and you may be correct that ill-informed people may consequently believe that Northern Ireland sportsmen compete for the Irish team (in fact, some Northern Ireland sportsmen do compete for the Irish team!), but your preference for the inclusion of a reference to NI is quite clearly not a fact and the possible confusion of the ill-informed is also not a reason to use the inaccurate title "United Kingdom". BTW, other Olympic sports that organise on an all-Ireland basis are badminton [10] [11], baseball [12], boxing [13], curling [14], cycling [15] (slightly unclear from the Irish site, but the rulebook of British Cycling [16] makes it clear that this organisation does not oversee NI), modern pentathlon [17], rowing [18], swimming [19], table tennis [20], and triathlon [21]. Valiantis 01:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons given by Valiantis. --G Rutter 16:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment The BOA's team does represent the United Kingdom. In compliance with the IOC charter (Chapter 4;3, 4;5, and 4;31), the BOA has registered itself as IOC-recognised national representation of the United Kingdom under the name 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', and is under parliamentary scrutiny as that representation (see the links to Hansard that I provided above), not as the representation of all of the British Islands. That 'Team GB' includes (or can include) athletes from the other British Islands is immaterial to which country that it represents (after all, only ten of the world's 59 dependencies have their own Olympic teams). Similarly, the Olympic Council of Ireland represents the Republic of Ireland, despite their past protestations to the contrary; that they have come to an agreement with the BOA and IOC under which the BOA and OCI share athletes from Northern Ireland is irrelevant. Bastin8 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reports you refer to from Hansard prove nothing useful. Any organisation that operates in the UK may come under the scrutiny of the UK parliament, but that does not make the BOA a body of the United Kingdom government in any way! In fact to quote from information in the very sources you have provided "The BOA is one of only a handful of NOCs worldwide not to receive government or public finance". Quite clearly the BOA does represent the UK, but it does not only represent the UK. Which part of this is hard to follow? Valiantis 01:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only did I not claim that the BOA is part of the British government (a laughable inference), but the salient point in the sentence, that it cannot represent both the UK and the Crown Dependencies, was not addressed; I've corresponded with the IOC and BOA extensively on this issue, and they have directed me to the sections of the Olympic Charter that I have cited above. The BOA does represent 'just' the UK; it cannot represent all of the British Islands as a singular entity, because they do not form a single country. To represent more than one country would require special dispensation from the IOC Executive Board (as the Unified Team received in 1992, for example), and the BOA has never sought to represent anyone except, or in addition to, the UK (they're be no point; due to British nationality law, any British Islands citizen can be fielded in a UK Olympic team). Bastin8 13:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any other inference that can be drawn from your comments about parliamentary scrutiny. If this was not what you were implying then I am not sure what you were attempting to prove with this comment. As competitors from the Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc do compete for the Great Britain team and are not citizens of the UK, then clearly, the BOA does not "represent" only the UK. I have never stated that the BOA represents "all of the British Islands as a singular entity" (and I am not clear what you mean by the term "British Islands" in any case. I am not aware that term has any legal validity and the geographical term is normally British Isles which would include the whole of the island of Ireland). Whilst I of course am assuming your good faith in this rename proposal, I have noticed that you identify yourself on your user page as a "British Imperialist" and regret the "missing 26 counties" that are now the Republic of Ireland; perhaps your stated POV is inadvertently colouring your approach to this matter? In any case, the BOA, which you are now putting great store by, uses the name "Great Britain". QED. Valiantis 15:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. If you've read my Wikipedia userpage, you must know me better than I know myself! I'm also really impressed that you feel yourself capable of ending your posts with the Latin term 'QED'. Can you also use the term 'ad hominem'?
That the BOA fields athletes from the Crown Dependencies does not mean that it represents the Crown Dependencies at the Olympics. Under the Olympic Charter (did you look it up? I doubt it), NOCs can represent only one country, and must register which country they represent with the IOC, and also an official name. The country that the BOA has registered itself to represent is the United Kingdom, and the name that it uses is 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Under the Olympic Charter and its own, it does not represent the Crown Dependencies; Jersey, Guernsey, and Manx athletes only qualify for 'Team GB' by virtue of being treated as though they were British citizens (a long-held principle, legally enshrined by the British Nationality Act 1981). Furthermore, the BOA does not use the name 'Great Britain', but 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. That has been conclusively proven in this discussion and several others.
And, under the Interpretation Act 1978, 'British Islands' is a legal term referring to the United Kingdom and the three Crown Dependencies.
  • Oppose ABC (the Australian one) uses "Great Britain" [22] ReeseM 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per nom. gidonb 13:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose It has been demonstrated that the existing version is more appropriate. Nathcer 15:59, 25 March 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.

Category:English popes to Category:Non-Italian popes[edit]

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. Syrthiss 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English popes is a subcategory of Non-Italian popes, with one member: Pope Adrian IV, the only English pope to date. Recommend the article be merged back into the parent category, and the category deleted. Johndodd 21:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As there was an English pope, there should be a category. Scranchuse 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This came up before and I suspect that it will come up again. Since it was decided that we could not have Category:Polish popes instead we have Category:Pope John Paul II rather then having them all grouped by a country category. Vegaswikian 06:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Mais oui! 23:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and it's good to know that a category of 1 member is perfectly acceptable. Carlossuarez46 01:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. David Kernow 13:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have recreated Category:Polish popes on the basis that this vote shows that there is now more tolerance for one member categories. Category:Pope John Paul II wasn't categorised as Polish at all, which shows how bad the previous system is. The English category isn't tagged so this vote is currently invalid, but that hardly seems to matter now. Choalbaton 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 26 March 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.

Category:Fictional custom cars to Category:Fictional automobiles[edit]

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. Syrthiss 15:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Near-complete content overlap here. Most fictional automobiles are custom, since otherwise they wouldn't be interesting. So merge.--Mike Selinker 20:16, 20 March 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.

Category:Australian states and territories to Category:States and territories of Australia[edit]

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. Syrthiss 15:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending rename to match WP:MOS, as well as consistency with all other subcategories in parent cat Category:States. み使い Mitsukai 19:46, 20 March 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.

Category:Grammy Award Winners to Category:Grammy Award winners[edit]

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 recap. Syrthiss 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winners shouldn't be capitalized. Esprit15d 19:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Speedy rename per nom and naming convention BigBlueFish 20:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as per above. David Kernow 13:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per nom. I'd like to add an opinion, however, that this should eventually become a root category with separate subcats for winners of each individual Grammy. — Dale Arnett 20:07, 22 March 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.

Category:Magazine lists to Category:Lists of magazines[edit]

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. Syrthiss 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two categories are about the same subject (lists of magazines). I suggest merging "Magazine lists" into "Lists of magazines" because Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items says naming standard for lists is "Lists of example". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.26.49 (talk • contribs)

  • Merge per nom. BigBlueFish 18:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Comment: I just realised the nomination. I don't know if that's allowed but I'd renominate it if it wasn't so it stays. BigBlueFish 18:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. There will be a total of 7 articles after the merge. —Dogears (talk) 08:32, 11 March 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.

Category:Main page alternates to Category:Main Page alternatives[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. Syrthiss 15:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "alternate" is awkward if not incorrect when used as a noun in this context, in particular to British readers, whereas "alternative" is more natural. Page should be capitalised as we are referring to alternatives to Main Page BigBlueFish 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : Category:Alternative Main Pages...? David Kernow 13:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Why does this come up so often? Alternative is a perjorative in many places. BigBlueFish just moved all the articles in this category to his preferred name, and then asks here to rename the category?!?! This is taking "be bold" way over the top. We've been using "Other" instead for awhile now. So, make it Category:Other Main Pages and name the articles accordingly. --William Allen Simpson 14:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- alternative occasionally has pejorative implications when used as an adjective, in the sense of a minority preference (such as alternative music, medicine) but that hardly applies here (though makes a case against the above suggested Alternative Main Pages) and I would contend that any use as a noun is neutral, if not complimentary in this age of cynicism. It's easy for you to say there's nothing wrong with the use of "alternate", but over here in the UK it really jars in this context and I'd be interested to hear that coming from any non-american. The usage of "alternate" in place of alternative probably derived from misuse, and Wiktionary marks it as a US usage. As for "Other Main Pages", where has it been used now? I disagree with that one because they can't all really be main pages. They are, rather, alternatives to the main page. BigBlueFish 15:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : If result is Keep or No consensus, please correct capitalisation. David Kernow 08:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Rename Support. per proposer --Quiddity 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. In this context, the word "alternates" is less correct than "alternatives." When these pages were created, I considered renaming them (or proposing such a change), but I was worried that I might have been taking my pedantry too far. I'm comforted to know that someone else cared about this, and I see no reason not to rename the category accordingly. (Incidentally, I'm from the United States.) —David Levy 05:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Another 'west ponder' here and 'alternatives' seems more natural than 'alternates' to me. I think we all agree the category, page name, and 'options' themselves should be consistent... and to me 'alternatives' seems a better choice than 'alternate' or 'other' (or 'options' for that matter). --CBDunkerson 11:08, 26 March 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.

Category:Hamilton Steelhawks players[edit]

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 move and delete Hamilton Steelhawks alumni. Syrthiss 15:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have depopulated the category and am proposing deletion because it is redundant to Category:Hamilton Steelhawks alumni. -- GTWeasel 15:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What happens if someone who played for the Hamilton Steelhawks is noteworthy for some reason other than going on to play in the NHL. It seems to me that the "alumni" categories are more useless than the "player" categories and could be thrown out instead, being more restrictive and being based on a distinction which really doesn't have to be made. Gene Nygaard 18:33, 20 March 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.

Category:Tokyoites[edit]

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 only. Syrthiss 15:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's virtually unused, and overlaps the much more popular/populated Category:People from Tokyo. While looking for a cat for Kineo Kuwabara today, I found "Tokyoites" and was amazed to see that it had a population of two. I added Kuwabara and Ihei Kimura. I then found "People from Tokyo" and switched the categories of these two new additions, thus bringing the population back down to two. I then looked at the existing two. One was of somebody who came from Tokyo but does not live or work in Japan; thus "People from Tokyo" would be intrinsically better for her. The other is a Playboy starlet whose biography (which I presume would anyway be fictitious) is sketchy. I moved them both to "People from Tokyo" (thus perhaps breaking a rule, sorry). Now, there could be a case for "People associated with Tokyo" or similar in addition to "People from Tokyo": when we look at Hiroh Kikai, for example, we see that he's not from Tokyo but he's of Tokyo. However, "Tokyoite" is vague, a rather repellent-sounding word (at least to my inner ear), and manifestly unpopular as a category. Thus I suggest deletion. Incidentally, "Tokyoites" is the only content of Category:People by Japanese city, which I have not marked with {{cfd}} but hereby nominate for deletion. Hoary 09:55, 20 March 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.

Category:Kabbalah practitioners[edit]

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. Syrthiss 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(a) This category is a Wikipedia:Orphan. (b) The category is a misnomer because Kabbalah is basically a deeper form of Torah study and therefore it is usually attributed to genuine Kabbalists who are always great rabbis such as Rabbi Isaac Luria, (they are NOT "practitioners" of anything -- which makes it sound like some form of "occult voodoo"). Traditionally Kabbalah was an extension of Judaism's varied forms of in-depth religious studies. (c) The confusion arises mainly from those modern followers of the Kabbalah Centre (many of whom are not Jews and do not practice Judaism) and are not recognized by any of the Jewish denominations, and thus (d) they are commonly referred to as "Followers of the Kabbalah Centre" or "Category:Kabbalah Centre followers" which was already specifically created for them. (Note: The Kabbalah Centre has been called a cult by many people). (e) Thus this category promotes a neologism and should be deleted ASAP to avoid any possibility of confusion. IZAK 08:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 08:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Never heard of such a thing, in addition to my understanding that Kabbalah must be studied only once certain qualifications are achieved, and is only run by institutions when this is done. Wikipedia is not a phone and address book (although WikiPhoneBook will probably exist in about two years or so). Evolver of Borg
  • Delete category is total nonsense. ems 09:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons above, but this is likely to come up again and become a controversial issue. As much as I scoff at the Madonnas and Britney Spearses of the world who pick this up as a fad, there are a growing number of people who have adopted Kabbalah as something distinct and separate from Judaism. As a result, there will be people here who claim that a list of kabbalah practitioners is noteworthy, phrased one way or another. My feeling is that we work on a temperate, firm, and persuasive response to all this rather than just rejecting what appears - like it or not - to be reality. --Leifern 11:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leifern: Do not worry, no normal person who is knowledgeable about Judaism is going to equate Britney or Madonna with genuine Mekubalim ("Kabbalists" in Hebrew) like Rabbis Yitzchak Kaduri or the Baal Shem Tov. Are you also worried that the millions of people who read every article about health and the human body in Reader's Digest will be called "doctors" or be regarded as "practitioners" of anything? Also, only lunatics can claim that Kabbalah can be split-off from Judaism, as it would be like saying that a group of lay-people have paid to hear some lectures about astrophysics and have consequently "decided" that it is "something distinct and separate from" physics. Then again, sure, they are welcome to their status as a new breakaway group akin to the Sabbatians who had a movement of millions of followers that went down the tubes of history. But we should most certainly strive with utmost accuracy to describe them objectively but not by adopting their POV views about themselves. IZAK 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inclusion criteria impossible to define. Agree with IZAK. JFW | T@lk 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with IZAK. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete highly ambiguous gidonb 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Kabbalah Centre followers is the right category JackO'Lantern 16:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User:JackO'Lantern's vote is significant because he is the one who originally created the category [23] therefore his agreement to delete it is important. Evidently his intent was well-meant: to create a new category for the Kabbalah Centre people which Category:Kabbalah Centre followers does in a more accurate fashion. Thanks Jack! IZAK 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Because of confusion between "Category:Kabbalah Centre followers" and genuine Kabbalists that are recognized within Judaism. I would not be opposed to a catagory that lists prominent Kabbalists such as the Arizal, Rabbi Kadouri, Rabbi Eliyashiv, the Chofetz Chaim, etc. But, this catagory, in contrast, would include people like Ashton Kutcher and Madonna... PhatJew 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a phone book. Yoninah 21:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated by IZAK. Dauster 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rachack 21:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:21, 26 March 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.

Category:Famous eccentrics[edit]

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 to delete, but since its being kept rename to Eccentrics per recent precedent. Syrthiss 15:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely POV category. What's an "eccentric" other than someone that some other person thinks is strange? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous related debates: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people widely considered eccentric (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people widely considered eccentric, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of notable eccentrics

  • Delete hopelessly POV and liable to be used to denigrate any person with views that an editor opposes or wants to rubbish i.e. religious people considering atheists eccentric or vice versa, hetero people considering all non hetero people to be eccentric, right wingers claiming left wingers are eccentric etc. Arniep 13:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the selections may be POV, the category in and of itself is not IMO. As stated in the namespace article Eccentricity (behavior) which I have linked to the category page states "Eccentric personalities are marked by ... disregard for society's norms." This should be able to be judged by NPOV. Doc 14:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eccentricity is not a pejorative description, nor is it wholly POV-linked. I agree that a reasonable NPOV description of an eccentric is one who chooses not to live according to the expectations of the greater society of which he or she is a part. Mary Read 17:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should then the article not document that "eccentricity"? For example, Antoni Gaudi. What qualifies him as eccentric? That he was a vegetarian? That he had mobility problems? Or Calvin Klein? Nothing there indicates any eccentricity. Or Charles K. Johnson - a loon, according to the article, but that's not the same as eccentric. And so on. At the very least, people should not be categorized in here without demonstration of "eccentricity" within the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Gaudí from the list, as per your concerns. Mary Read 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as stated above "disregard for society's norms" should be a strong indicator, Calvin Klein clearly has this pointed out in his article, to begin with his advertising campaigns have certainly bucked 'norms' not to mention his lifestyle, but your point is well taken that articles should if necessary have additions to highlight the eccentricity. Individual discussions can take place on the talk page Doc 18:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Well-spotted, and certainly to be considered for the sake of internal consistency. Mary Read 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV. If kept, rename to Category:Eccentrics. -Sean Curtin 05:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fiddle with the name by all means, fame is ephemeral but eccentricity is encyclopaedic. The writer who took his pet lobster for a walk - eccentric yes, POV? The French savant whose dinners proceeded from coffee to soup - his eccentricity was part of the story. Midgley 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion, based on the definition above Tim McVeigh and Osama bin Laden and most any criminal merits inclusion, so does Rosa Parks who did not confine her behavior to society's norms at her place and time, etc. etc. Carlossuarez46 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Probable delete as per the above, but if kept, suggest Category:People described as eccentric. David Kernow 13:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It will always be a value judgement as to whether a person is eccentric. Categories should not be named on the basis of a value judgement. I agree that "eccentric" is not necessarily a pejorative description, but whether it is pejorative or not is irrelevant. Category:Evil people and Category:Good people are equally unwelcome. Valiantis 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename. Some individuals like Howard Hughes are clearly eccentrics. Vegaswikian 06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it will make questions like this easier to answer (and per Mary Read). --TeaDrinker 07:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and rename to Category:Eccentrics. --Francis Schonken 12:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per the above arguments. I'm very surprised to see so much support for a hopelessly non-NPOV category. —David Levy 12:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone takes their lobster for walks, the article on them should include "(s)he often took his/her lobster for a walk." There is no need to lump them together with flat earthers, political/religious extreminsts, diet cranks, etc. Not a useful category, no possibility of precise inclusion criteria ('social norms' ?! Whose? When?) --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Agree with nominator. Crumbsucker 15:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Arniep. -- Kjkolb 21:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No objective criteria. -Will Beback 22:48, 27 March 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.

Category:Cross country skiers at the 2006 Winter Olympics to Category:Cross-country skiers at the 2006 Winter Olympics[edit]

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. Syrthiss 15:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Initially this was listed at Speedy as a simple typo fix: substitute a hyphen for a space in "cross country", but it was contested and was subsequently delisted. See below for the objection, my rebuttal, and another editor's seconding of my nomination as copied from Speedy history page. Mareklug talk 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Speedy history:

Disagree - Outside sites and all of our other Olympic references refer to the sport as cross country without the hypen. Sue Anne 06:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is the appropriate place for a rebuttal, but Torino Olympics 2006's own page referes to "Cross-Country Skiing" with a hyphen: [24]. Wikipedia refers to anything "cross-country" with a hyphen in articles describing such things: Cross-country skiing, Cross-country running. Wikipedia's Olympic pages for the cross-country skiing results from previous Olympics for the most part reside under hyphenated "cross-country" (1994 and 1998 are the only exceptions, which I nominated for renaming on their Talk pages)(these 2 have been already renamed), with non-hyphenated versions featured as redirects for obvious reasons. This category which I listed for speedy renaming as a typo is the only Wikipedia category beginning with "cross country" (no hyphen) -- see the index of categories starting with "cross country": [25], as well as the index for categories starting with "cross-country": [26]. Finally, describing current English usage, The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "cross-country" [27] and merely redirects any search for "cross country" to, you guessed it, its "cross-country" listing: [28]. -- Mareklug talk 06:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sue Anne isn't correct on this. Every cross-country category (see Category:Cross-country skiers) here has a hyphen. This can be speedily changed.--Mike Selinker 07:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move. Normal English usage for "cross-" as a combining form is either hyphenated (cross-fertilize) or combined into one word (e.g., crossbreed with redirect from cross-breed). Otherwise, it might sound like a bunch of people out running the countryside who are "cross" (cranky, irritable). Gene Nygaard 17:32, 20 March 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.

Category:Places in Kuwait[edit]

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. Syrthiss 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. articles and subcategories moved to Category:Geography of Kuwait. Zer0fighta 00:17, 20 March 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.

Category:People from Georgia to Category:People from Georgia (U.S. state)[edit]

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...and I'll try to semi-dab it and protect it to see if that works. Syrthiss 15:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Done twice before. -- Win777 02:01, 20 March 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.

Category:Israeli Defense Forces guided missiles to Category:Israel Defense Forces guided missiles[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. Syrthiss 15:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency with other subcategories under Category:Israel Defense Forces. -- JLaTondre 02:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification for those as blind to small changes as I... The rename drops the terminal "i" on Israeli. --Syrthiss 15:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 19:54, 20 March 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_20&oldid=1132245812"