Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 30

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< October 29 October 31 >

October 30 edit

Category:Women lawyers edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 00:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women lawyers into Category:Lawyers

  • Merge per Wikipedia gender neutral policy. Category:Lawyers by nationality would be a better place but the bots can not do this. Vegaswikian 23:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There may be a valid reason for having a category of notable female professionals. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Whether a woman is a lawyer is not a remarkable fact at present; I think the majority of my law school class was female. This was not always true, and it is still comparatively rare for women to be partners in law firms, or achieve high government positions like state attorney generals (has there ever been a woman A.G.?), but achievements for women in the field of law is a subject for articles to document, and this category at best only suggests it. Postdlf 01:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge In this case I don't think the intersection matters. "Feminist Lawyers" or lawyers who belong to some women's group might be a category, but this is too broad.--T. Anthony 06:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge An inconsequential combination. I believe a majority of young British lawyers are now female. Piccadilly 11:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. ReeseM 13:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete. There's no special law system for women. Pavel Vozenilek 16:38, 4 November 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 section.

Category:Great Lakes Avengers villains edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Great Lakes Avengers villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, unnecessary category clutter for trivial superhero group. As the Great Lakes Avengers article states, the team has "appeared sporadically since their first appearance." See the mess at the bottom of Doctor Doom for why not every hero and hero group should have their own specific "___ villains" category. In addition to deleting this category outright, simply merging all of the entries into the much more significant Category:Avengers villains would be acceptable, as would adding a list of villains the GLA has faced to that group's article. Postdlf 21:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. — J Greb 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Doczilla 20:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Don't UpMerge. Listify if wanted. - jc37 04:06, 2 November 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 section.

Category:Marvel Comics mutants with superhuman strength edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics mutants with superhuman strength into Category:Marvel Comics characters with superhuman strength and Category:Marvel Comics mutants

  • Merge back into parent categories—overcategorization. If the whole point of the categorization-by-power scheme is to compare how the same superpower has been depicted across different titles and characters, the more specific the subgroupings become, the more useless the category scheme. There's also no reason to think the depictions of superman strength are any more similar or associated between mutant characters than others beyond the fact that many of the same comics creators were probably involved. There are no other mutant-power specific subcategories, btw (and it should stay that way). Postdlf 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per nom. Dahn 20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, with a hearty echo of Postdlf's comments. EVula 20:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, the explanation given when the category was created was "to reduce load of parent category." I don't mean to single out that contributor, because I've seen the same explanation by many others for many other categories, but I think that rationale needs to be criticized. First, I don't even know what it means for a category to be "overloaded." The system breaks listings down into chunks of 200 entries, so no one is stuck with an endlessly scrolling screen when browsing, and Template:CategoryTOC allows for direct jumping to specific letters within the alphabetized categories, so no one is stuck endlessly searching through screen after screen. Second, even if one assumes that a category does need to be subcategorized, that doesn't explain why this is the way to do it. I just wanted to head off the generic "Keep, useful division of large category" comments that don't actually address the merits of the category at all. Postdlf 20:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom. — J Greb 01:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I argued for division of "Fictional characters with..." into "Marvel..." and "DC..." but further subcategorizing is excessive. Especially when there are characters whose status as mutants is unclear. --HKMarks(T/C) 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Doczilla 09:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Agree with HKM that "mutants" can be unclear at times in Marvel. (And I don't want to think about the "mutates" discussion right now, thank you : ) - jc37 04:06, 2 November 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 section.

Category:Doctor Who companions who were killed edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doctor Who companions who were killed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per prior precedent against categorizing fictional characters as being dead (see, e.g., Category:Deceased fictional characters CFD), and per guideline to describe fiction in present tense. These dead fictional character categories are always absurd in at least one unique way—in this case, two of the five characters included are robots. Postdlf 20:33, 30 October 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 section.

Category:Romanian-speaking countries edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. I have also nominated Category:Catalan-speaking countries for deletion here. the wub "?!" 10:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Romanian-speaking countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. this category is a stealth recreation of the deleted template referred to here (note the almost universal consensus on the matter). Like the said template, it is POV, as it imposes a definition of the Moldovan language which is not necessarily universal. What's more than that, it is destined to include AT BEST, ONLY TWO ARTICLES (Romania and Moldova, the latter of which, as stated, should probably not be included). The category's creator, User:Danutz, should know better (in my view, the category's creation constitutes trolling). Dahn 20:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There really is no need for this category that only includes two items. In any case, there already was a vote on a similar group with conclusive results. TSO1D 21:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above `'mikkanarxi 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this. Khoikhoi 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Piccadilly 11:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This would only be interesting if Christopher Columbus had sailed from Romania when he found the New World. George J. Bendo 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as malicious recreation. Pavel Vozenilek 16:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now this is malicious and POV from you. See Category:Countries by language : Category:Spanish-speaking countries, Category:French-speaking countries or even Category:Catalan-speaking countries, Category:Chinese-speaking countries and territories and Category:Danish-speaking countries. Why doesn't Romanian have this right? Vojvodina should also be included in that category, as per Category:Danish-speaking countries or Category:Chinese-speaking countries and territories. I don't think it will be deleted, as there are those other categories (and it will be POV from you), but I see it suprisingly interesting that problems appeared only when Romanian-speaking countries category was created. And this came from a Romanian. Nice. Also, attention it says Romanian-speaking countries not countries where Romanian is official. As per Category:German-speaking countries even if a country doesn't have the language as official, it can still be included if there is a signifiant number of speakers.--Danutz
  • Comment, Category:Catalan-speaking countries only has one entry. Postdlf 20:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - To Danutz: the absurdity of other users does not condone your POV maneuvers. To Postdlf: Wikipedia clearly states categories should not include just one member. Dahn 21:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, as long as that should go too...just making sure there was consistency. Postdlf 22:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In this case I think the "singleton" nature of the article is unequivocal. (Oddly enough, I just noticed that the People's Republic of China is not listed under Category:Chinese-speaking countries and territories, making the Singapore and the Republic of China (Taiwan) the only countries in the list, the latter of which is disputed by the PRC government.)
  • Delete, insufficient need for category; only one non-controversial entry, at most two. Postdlf 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, because there is only one uncontested entry. Banazir 23:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, the category is POVish, but I think it reflects the POV of the majority of linguists. I'm not sure what would be its reason of existence except promoting this specific POV. I mean it's not like somebody would learn Romanian and then would search on Wikipedia to see in which countries he/she would be able to make use the new aquired knowledge... On the other hand that's not inacurrate in my view (even if Moldova calls its official language "Moldovan" it's still Romanian, any decent linguist would admit that.) -- AdrianTM 01:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to comment - Whatever that amounts to (if anything), it would still a bad idea to create categories with just two members. Dahn 01:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment to comment to comment -- I'm not sure I understand the logic, why two is too few members? Is three, OK? Is there something special about the number 3? -- AdrianTM 18:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment to comment to comment to comment - 1. we're not really talking about two, since: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. (first time you've seen the guideline?) 2. as you may see for yourself, most users will consider useless a category that grouping as few articles as thisun. I'm not sure I understand your logic in this context (but what they know? we're here in order to "hide the truth"). Dahn 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment 1. It's really uncontroversial in linguists opinion that people in Moldova speak Romanian no matter how they officially call the language. First paragraph in Wikipedia about Moldovan says "Moldovan is the official name for the Romanian language in the Republic of Moldova and in the territory of Transnistria" (please don't come with examples like Stati because no independent linguist take him seriously) 2. If there's no clear policy or recommendation, like "three is enough to make a grouping, two is not enough" then please don't make up such policy, two is perfect grouping. -- AdrianTM 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment And by the way I just realized... if Transnistria becomes an independent country it would be the third country included into that category, three is not enough for you? Is four? For me two is enough to make a category. -- AdrianTM 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mihai -talk 08:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But why would we apply double standards? I don't think it is NPOV if this category is deleted as the others remain. The decision should be taken in a poll that includes all Wikipedia users and adresses all categories. And please donnot alterate the discussion: The template is not called Places where Romanian is official, is called Romanian-speaking countries. Namibia qualifies as an German-speaking country, although the language is not official there (and not very much spoken). Moldova qualifies as an Romanian-speaking country as the majority of the populations speaks that language. (And officialy Romanian is identical to Moldovan, see Moldovan language) --Danutz
Comment to comment: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You, as well as other users who engaged in creating and "x-speaking countries", appear to have done just that. What would be constructive is if you went and rationalized (or, respectively, deleted) the other categories where shaky criteria apply, instead of implying that their use sanctions your theory. Since you are an administrator on ro:wiki, Danutz, you should have been aware of these simple facts by now. Dahn 18:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I made up my mind. I think people want to delete this only to hide the truth from other people, no other reason. -- AdrianTM 18:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adrian.--Tekleni 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under this name. But there may be a relevant category to be had, probably under the name Category:Daco-Romanian-speaking countries and territories. Even those who claim (tendentiously, in my view, but claim) that Moldovan is a distinct language agree that it is a Daco-Romanian language. And the inclusion of regions would allow mention of the Budjak, for example. - Jmabel | Talk 00:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment including "territories" would open a bigger can of worms. What would be the criteria? What percentage of population has to speak "Daco-Romanian"? How you delimitate a "territory"? The consensus on Wikipedia is that Moldovan is the official name for Romanian Language in Moldova. I can't accept a "Daco-Romanian speaking countries" compromise because it's a different concept: Romanian is a language, "Daco-Romanian" is a category of languages, just like "Germanic languages" it doesn't mean much in itself, for example if you know a Germanic language e.g. English you'll not understand much if you hear another Germanic language e.g. German. (EDIT: actually the example is bad, Daco-Romanian is probably meant to differentiate between Romanian spoken at North of Danube from Aromanian spoken at South, anyway Daco-Romanian is a nebulous term that probably should be avoided, Romanian is clearer) -- AdrianTM 01:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- before you make up your mind read what's the consensus on Wikipedia about Romanian language and judge for yourself. -- AdrianTM 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ummm, the fact that we already have categories such as Category:Spanish-speaking countries means that there is no rational reason why this category should be deleted, even if the number of countries/regions included in it will be small. Personally, I'm not a big fan of categorising countries in this way, though it is helpful for a user to have in a category all the countries/regions where Romanian is official. My point is, however, that we have to keep this if we're going to keep all of the other "-speaking countries" categories. In particular, we have Category:Catalan-speaking countries (which contains one country!), Category:Danish-speaking countries and Category:Dutch-speaking countries. Since I am an inclusionist, I believe these categories should also not be deleted, because they do add value to the project. Otherwise, it would only be fair that the other categories are also nominated for deletion (so far, no-one has done this). Thanks,    Ronline ✉ 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Grandmaster 06:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Irpen 07:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary and potentially inflammatory, as well as a hidden attempt to recreate a deleted template... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Truth, inflammatory? Never! Should Wikipedia skirt all the info that's "inflamatory"? Oh, well, your decision... -- AdrianTM 00:24, 8 November 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 section.

Category:Special protection areas in the United Kingdom edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Special protection areas in the United Kingdom to Category:Special Protection Areas in the United Kingdom

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 section.

Category:Olympic gold medalists for Soviet Union edit

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: SPEEDY MERGE, redundant and misnamed. Postdlf 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympic gold medalists for Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, The category Category:Olympic gold medalists for the Soviet Union already exists. Cmapm 17:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Speedy Merge - "the" : ) - (Though it's already apparently been deleted...) - jc37 04:06, 2 November 2006 (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.

Category:Fictional trouble makers edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional trouble makers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. This should be obvious, but just in case: this is an unmaintainable, inherently POV category that is likely to expand beyond all reasonable bounds and feature countless arguments over which characters are trouble-makers. Is The Joker a troublemaker? Dennis the Menace? ALF? Should we be deciding this? No. Powers T 14:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Just a bit over-arching in its scope... EVula 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I happen to consider the murderous Joker more into shenanigans, Dennis the Menace indulges in monkey-business, and ALF's forte is hijinks. Postdlf 20:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of no use and painfully subjective. Dahn 20:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete excessively broad category that inherently invokes POV and will be full of OR. Doczilla 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Fictional juvenile troublemakers. Remove Ernest and Mr T (I mean BA Baracus : ) - jc37 04:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hoylake 23:41, 4 November 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 section.

Category:Marvel Comics supervillains edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Marvel Comics supervillains into Category:Marvel Comics villains

  • No vote. In a previous debate a number of people said that the distinction between supervillains and villains should be removed. However this category was not nominated or tagged then, so I am nominating it now. Personally I feel that the categorisation is OK, we have a number of subcats of Category:Supervillains. the wub "?!" 13:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reasonable subcat of both Category:Supervillains by publisher and Category:Marvel Comics villains. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. If the previous debate switched all the specific categories, then all the Supervillains by publisher and other such categories should switch too.--Mike Selinker 12:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency with other publishers' subcategories Doczilla 20:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think they all should be renamed to some form of fictional villains or villains in fiction. - jc37 04:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's necessary. "A villain is an "evil" character in a story, whether an historical narrative or, especially, a work of fiction. The villains are the bad guys or heavies, the characters who strive against the hero." "Villain" can be applied to real people poetically, but not factually. --HKMarks(T/C) 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • K, then define Supervillain for me, and tell me who qualifies for inclusion? Does Merlyn the Archer? Does Jason Todd? Does Maxwell Lord? Lex Luthor (How about the Byrne version of Lex - captain of industry)? Killer Moth? Kite-man? Calendar Man? How about Black Adam of Kandaq, or Sonar of Modora, or Baron Bedlam of Markovia - Should they be considered supervillains or freedom fighters? (And I'll pass on the questions of Marvel's mutants... Was Magneto right?) And, from one perspective, The Hulk is/was a supervillain, just ask the US military in Marvel comics. I just think that the term is too ambiguous, and requires citations. It would seem that the Supervillain article is attempting to quantify, rather than just saying: "An opponent of a superhero". By all means, try to make a list, but using "supervillain" in a category name just sounds like a bad idea. - jc37 11:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd almost say merge/rename, but there's a big difference between a supervillain and a "villain," which is often simply an antagonist or a mean person or whatever. I brought up the removal-of-distinction thing for stub sorting purposes, because I don't think stub sorting should be split up too much. Removing the distinction of "non-superpowered" was particularly important because many villains use technology or weapons--giving them special abilities but no "powers" per se. Perhaps consider merger of "supervillains by publisher" though-- then, say, Dr. Doom can be a "Supervillain" and a "Marvel Comics villain" --HKMarks(T/C) 04:54, 3 November 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 section.

Category:Breton cyclists edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:French cyclists. the wub "?!" 11:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Breton cyclists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename, Category:Cyclists from Bretagne, Category:Cyclists born in Bretagne or Category:Cyclists natives of Bretagne (subcategory of Category:Natives of Bretagne). Breton refers to an ethnicity that is only marginally recognised, and not at all by the french republic nor the European Union (and most of the people that leave in current Bretagne, incuding all those from Gallo area, do not wish to be considered as ethnic Bretons). Thus there is no source at all that can say that one is Breton and one is not. On the other hand, in using cyclists from Bretagne you refer to an existing region of France that has clear and definite boundaries. If people were born there or have been living there they can then be part of the new category. The use of the word Breton instead of Brittany or Bretagne is a clear provocation of Breton activists, far from the neutrality expected by wikipedia users, all the more biased as many of the people listed in this category have never claimed to be ethnic Bretons !!! Second benefit, will allow homogeneisation with other regional french categories that might be created, like cyclists from Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, cyclists from Rhône-Alpes, cyclists from Aquitaine... Finnishwinner 09:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand perfectly your point. The only problem is that there is no definition of what a Breton is, because Bretagne, Brittany and Gallo coutry are not the same, and from different perspectives you can say that the inhabitants are or aren't bretons. I only want to find a term that can be clear and not politically disputed... Finnishwinner 13:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not assume good faith for one precise reason: I have followed the debates on french language wikipedia, and before being banned by the administrators for political agitation the same people that created many new breton categories (check) were claiming that they would apply for political asylum on other wikipedias. Those who read french will be very interested by this link: [1] Moreover, only citizenship is useful for those cycling competition, Bernard Hinault hasn't ever won a world championship with Breton citizenship. For one simple reason: it does not exist, Bretagne does not have any kind of autonomy contrary to Scotland or Catalogne. Finnishwinner 14:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the French-language Wikipedia, and obvious displays of bias like putting [[Breton Revolutionary Army|Breton activists]] in your nomination, make it difficult to take your protestations about neutrality very seriously. Assuming good faith is not optional. Merge up per Greg Grahame. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I give you the point, for neutrality purpose I should have mentioned those Breton activists. Finnishwinner 14:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete into Category:French cyclists. Breton does not have the same status as English/Scottish etc. Please do not create regional categories for cyclists as national categories are quite detailed enough. 99% or so or users are not French and French regional differences are of little interest to them and they are not of any relevance to cycling.Greg Grahame 13:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per Greg Grahame. EVula 20:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete up per Greg Grahame. Or a pox on everyone's house and upmerge to Category:European cyclists. --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per Greg Grahame. Piccadilly 11:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People in Brittany are just Bretons today, like 15 centuries ago. Some of them ride bikes. Not all of them are activists. Finnishwinner should read other articles in wikipedia.Kergidu 20:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete Pavel Vozenilek 16:40, 4 November 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 section.

Category:18 Wheels of Steel Fansites edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:18 Wheels of Steel Fansites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, There are not yet any notable articles in this category (18 wheels of steel is the game itself, and I have nominated TruckPol and Truck Sim Skins (Website)). In the unlikely event that either of these fansite articles is not deleted, I rescind this nomination. Vectro 06:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pretty clear-cut... EVula 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The game is not so notable that its fansites need categorization. George J. Bendo
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 section.

Category:Metal Slug arcade series edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Metal Slug arcade series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Empty and redundant, Category:Metal Slug appears to serve the purpose adequately. Combination 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. EVula 20:52, 30 October 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 section.

Category:Fictional stallholders edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Fictional market stallholders. the wub "?!" 10:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional stallholders to Category:Fictional market traders

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 section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_30&oldid=1136103784"