Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 1

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The little used category is sooner nonsense and a waste of resources. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_free_host.2C_blog.2C_webspace_provider_or_social_networking_site

• Delete as nom. Netscott 23:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Uhoh, none of these people are going to add you to their friends list. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 00:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 00:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 21:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete breaches WP:NPOV, this policy includes categories.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but only if I can create Category:Wikipedians who are butt ugly for POV balance. (Hey, I need to file myself somewhere.) But seriously, though...delete. Bearcat 02:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete all --William Allen Simpson 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should not attempt to duplicate every fact that rates a mention in the articles. This is not a defining characteristic.

• Category:Artists featured on MTV Unplugged
• Category:Artists featured on MTV Unplugged - Season 01
• Category:Artists featured on MTV Unplugged - Season 02
• Category:Artists featured on MTV Unplugged - Season 03
• Category:Artists featured on MTV Unplugged - Season 04
• Category:Artists featured on MTV Unplugged - Season 12

Delete all Chicheley 23:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, categorycruft. BoojiBoy 13:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I created the categories, but now I see they are not the best way to organise these pages. I am creating a list page with this information. Kio 18:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 21:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all in favor of the new list. Excellent work, Kio! ×Meegs 06:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was No consensus --William Allen Simpson 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. All the compounds in Category:Sulfur compounds but outside Category:Organosulfur compounds should be inorganic. We could keep Category:Inorganic sulfur compounds and put all the categories and articles in it that belong there, but I don't think that would be productive. —Keenan Pepper 23:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Several of the <element> compounds categories are divided by the type of compound. Perhaps we should solicit opinions from the Chemistry Wikiproject Bluap 13:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category specifies only listing descendents of one specific union between Salvatore Travolta and Helen Burke under the name Travolta family yet there are numerous Travoltas descended from unions outside of that between Salvatore Travolta and Helen Burke - thus to keep the category I propose it be refined to reflect exactly what it is limited to, only those children of Salvatore Travolta and Helen Burke. (For instance, Salvatore Travolta and Margaret Vitali had a child that is not a part of the Salvatore and Helen Burke union; Salvatore Sr. Travolta and Josephine Marsala had several children that were not part of the Salvatore (Jr) Travolta and Helen Burke union) Alternatively, the category would need to be open to all those of the Travolta family and not those only born to Salvatore Travolta and Helen Burke, or it would be need to be deleted. Sinjinsmyth 20:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose totally unnecessary, only descendants of Salvatore Travolta and Helen Burke are notable enough for an encyclopedia. Arniep 21:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Arniep. The rename would add obscurity to little or no benefit. Osomec 21:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You're rather missing the point here. Wikipedia does not do genealogical categories. The point of this category is not "people descended from Salvatore Travolta and Helen Burke" — it's "people who are directly related to John Travolta". And yeah, I realize that those esssentially happen to be the same thing, but that doesn't make them equivalently valid as the rationale for a category. I don't actually think that's necessary as a categorization scheme, but it's certainly more valid than basing a category on the names of parents few Wikipedia users have ever heard of. Oppose. Bearcat 02:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has categories for royal houses which are definitely based on genealogy. Arniep 13:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Bearcat's edit of the descriptive forward on the page I think the Travolta-Burke point is now moot and can be dropped. Now that the terminology reflects all members of the family the category title makes sense as is. Sinjinsmyth 01:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ain't no point in no Travolta category at all 'cause ain't no notable Travoltas except John Travolta all the rest just wannabe. EraserX 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was Category Redirect --William Allen Simpson 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Category:Turnicidae. Whatever became of the idea of using common names? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• reverse merge, the fact that Category:Turnicidae starts "Buttonquails are..." and doesn't mention the word "Tunicidae" once suggests that "Buttonquail" is the common name. Thryduulf 12:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from June 22 for more opinions. Conscious 20:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom into Category:Turnicidae for consistency as Category:Birds by classification and its subcategories use scientific names rather than common names. --Musicpvm 02:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, then keep as redirect. How many people will know what Turnicidae means? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• reverse merge and rename all others to use common names wherever possible. Calsicol 23:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete, it has only two articles, not appropriately categorized, no opportunity for expansion. --William Allen Simpson 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I support the creation of fictional articles, cats and such, this one is rather useless. Very general, doesn't seem to be defined. There were many wars in this fictional universe, and this category may refer to any of them, and seems to be attached to articles from battles to military technology. The only thing it succeeds in is adding pointless clutter to category sections.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Warfare in the Honorverse... would seem to address your objections. "War" as a word seems to apply to the articles categorized in it. 70.51.8.92 08:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The series is military science-fiction, almost everything in it is about war. This category is pointless.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a military SF series, but then what does the Honor Harrington family tree, or the government structure of Manticore have to do with war? There are stories in the series that don't deal with war, and quite a lot of the series is devoted to non-war politicking, financial matters, and family histories.So, no, not almost everything is about war. I don't see why it is pointless. Did you read the books? 70.51.10.183 10:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, as I pointed above, it should be wars, not war. The category Wars in Honorverse currently would include only the stub Final War (Honorverse). The category battles in Honorverse, a logical subcategory, would include only Battle of Manticore. None of the other articles currently in this cat belong in the hierarchy of Category:Wars->Category:Fictional wars; they overlap a little but that's not enough (for the same reason article about United States, for example, is not in Category:World War II. On a final note, if you want to participate in our project, I'd recommend registering and contributing to some articles - that's should give you some useful experience.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 07:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the subcategories are for people who are not physicians in the Commonwealth English meaning of the term, and therefore the category name is factually incorrect from the point of view of a large number of readers. Chicheley 20:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to neutral term as above. Chicheley 20:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 21:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 07:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with other categories for Filipino occupations. Lbbzman 18:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Musicpvm 20:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you really want to rename this as proposed? As per the wiki standard for spy categories, this includes articles on people who spied for the Philippines and are not necessarily Filipinos. The Euro-American I put into this category (when I created this category) is not Filipino, for example. Thanks Hmains 02:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. To be consistent, then, all of the other categories listed at Category:Spies by nationality should be renamed. Filipino is to the Phillipines as Japanese is to Japan. Lbbzman 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The nomination is based on a misunderstanding, but I think we should categorise spies both ways. Osomec 21:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, this category is a child of Category:Spies by nationality, which would seem to indicate citizens of a certain country. The accompanying text of Category:Spies by nationality indicates that the category is to be used for spies and the country they worked for, not necessarily the country where they held citizenship. I agree that it is currently confusing. Perhaps an overhaul of the Spies categories is in order. Perhaps a scheme similar to the Category:Translators by destination language and Category:Translators by source language should be created. Lbbzman 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename However, the non-Filipino guy mentioned should go into another category. Maybe Category:Espionage in the Philippines or Category:Spies for the Philippines or something? --Chris S. 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 07:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfM from 2006 May that never was properly added here to be discussed. --William Allen Simpson 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Category:Red giant branch stars is unnecessary. --Musicpvm 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Golfcam 03:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was reverse merge. Conscious 07:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ancient CfM and Mergefrom from 2006 January that never was properly added here to be discussed. --William Allen Simpson 18:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. According to the main article, Ethology is the scientific study of animal behavior considered as a branch of zoology. It seems like they should merge per nom, but I'd rather reserve my vote and encourage any biologists to comment on whether the two are synonyms as they seem to be, or if there is a distinction that could and should be explained to the lay reader. --M@rēino 19:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but I think they should be merged into Category:Ethology. --Musicpvm 20:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Category Redirect to avoid another recreation. --William Allen Simpson 18:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers. Otherwise it will just keep getting recreated. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect using the template. Osomec 17:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete G4 recreated same day as deleted. --William Allen Simpson 18:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a category, already moved content to Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are better ways to categorize movies than arbitrary lists from magazines/channels/tv shows. I would probably support a delete on an AfD for the article, too. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just spent half an hour fixing up the article format... I'd prefer for it to stay. However, the cat should certainly go. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete every media-endorsement category of this type. Osomec 17:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, this was actually re-created. See previous nomination and delete proposal: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 21#Category:Bravo.27s 100 Funniest Movies. --Musicpvm 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 07:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC) The current name is ambiguous (there is also a Portland in Maine) and inconsistent. User:Arual 15:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move per consistency. Leave a cat redirect. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 17:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and NO category redirect. The Oregon was likely named after the Maine, and we don't need category redirects where there is ambiguity. These aren't Detroiters or Chicagoans. --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Portlanders (Oregon) Mayumashu 23:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Mereda 07:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match other members of Category:Canals by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency. --Musicpvm 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was Deleted by Joy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

and

and

Entries are in appropriate Serbian categories [or in category nominated for merge below]. Tim! 10:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC), amended David Kernow 03:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete [all]. So goes the state, so goes the category. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC), amended David Kernow 03:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. David Kernow 03:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of these as above. Though I feel a bit cautious towards what I think youngamerican meant, since some categories could well survive from even a short-lived former state.--Mereda 14:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was Renamed by Joy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

All Montenegro Monasteries moved to a new category. Tim! 10:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move per clear-cut nom. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Mereda 13:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was No consensus to rename, relisted pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 10 --William Allen Simpson 00:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title is ambiguous, as "limited-access road" can mean anything from a full freeway to a local surface road for which driveway access is limited. See [1] for evidence of the latter:

Limited access road for the purposes of this Strategy (section 5.6.3) is a local road occupied by a district/city council, where the number of accesses onto that road from properties is limited, due to road safety and visibility reasons.

The same is true of "controlled access":[2]

"Controlled access highway" means every highway, street or roadway in respect to which owners or occupants of abutting lands and other persons have no legal right of access except at such points only and in such manner as may be determined by the public authority having jurisdiction over such highway, street or roadway.

On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, freeway is a term with only one modern meaning - a road with full control of access. Motorway is a similar term, but is not all-encompassing; motorway status implies certain standards and the banning of slow vehicles like bicycles. Many non-motorways are freeways. --SPUI (T - C) 09:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to either Category:Freeways or Category:Freeways and motorways. —Scott5114↗ 09:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Freeways is a more intuitive title, and as SPUI explains, it's also more accurate. Savor the double-whammy. — Jul. 1, '06 [13:37] <freak|talk>
  • Addendum: "Freeways and motorways" sounds like a reasonable compromise, as this is a category that primarily contains geographical subcategories (named according to localisms) rather than the actual articles. Actually, Category:Limited-access roads by country should also be changed... — Jul. 3, '06 [13:50] <freak|talk>
• Rename per well-weasoned nom. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Just decided the other way at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 30#Category:Freeways to Category:Freeways and motorways. "Freeway" is an Americanism, isn't used in a consistent way in America, and isn't used worldwide. Heck, many freeways aren't free. Let's stop category thrashing. --William Allen Simpson 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Limited-access roads" is a vague term that no user would intuitively use. — Jul. 1, '06 [18:45] <freak|talk>
  • "Free as in freeway" means free from cross traffic. Not all free software is free as in beer. I explain the problem with other names; please deal with my arguments. --SPUI (T - C) 21:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody really needs to address the strawmen, as both clearly fit quite well into "limited-access roads", but wouldn't in freeway, expressway, or motorway.
    1. Reminder: the Germans invented the concept,^{[citation needed]} and the original term would be "Autobahn". That would be nicely unambiguous.
    2. Reminder: in the US, the concept was copied after seeing the autobahns during WW2, and is called the "Interstate Highway System", not the "Freeway" system.
    3. Category:Freeways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was explicitly rejected and deleted. That term isn't even consistent between US states, let alone around the world!
    4. Category:Freeways and motorways was also rejected, because some motorways are not free from cross traffic.
    5. The whole purpose of this category is broad generality, distinguishing common roads and streets from more notable thoroughfares.

       A term like "limited-access roads" is neutral because it's not commonly used, and is intended to be more of a definition than a term. --Vossanova

    6. There are supposed to be subcategories for each jurisdiction, so that each can have a more clear expression that complies with local usage. See Category:Limited-access roads by country.
    7. See also List of slang terms for freeways and expressways.
    8. Trying to find a word or phrase that is world scope and unambiguous is a fools' errand. We've picked something clear, let's move on, and stop category thrashing.

    --William Allen Simpson 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • A term like "limited access roads" may be neutral, but if so it has the wrong meaning. According to [3] (if that doesn't work go to Vol 3 Part 8 Appendix 5 in [4]), part of Brougham Street (43°32′54″S 172°39′11″E / 43.548439°S 172.652936°E / -43.548439; 172.652936) in Christchurch is a limited access road. Take a look at an aerial - it's a typical surface road. Not a motorway. --SPUI (T - C) 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like a limited access road to me. --William Allen Simpson 02:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then you need to do some studying until you understand that we don't want a category of every road to which the maintaining authority restricts access. --SPUI (T - C) 02:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also limited access road, mhich I just wrote. --SPUI (T - C) 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody much cares, since you seem to be re-writing all the definitions on the fly. At this point, the nomination should be suspended until many eyes have had an opportunity to review your revisionism. --William Allen Simpson 02:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there something wrong with the article? Bring it up there if you think so. --SPUI (T - C) 02:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Freeways is an Americanism. All the options have drawbacks, but I think category:Freeways and motorways has the least. Chicheley 23:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could work too, but the current location doesn't. --SPUI (T - C) 23:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• change to category:Freeways and motorways per Chicheley. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment -- and now it's hard to know what should be used, as SPUI just substantially re-wrote the Freeway article, eliminating terms he didn't like, such as "superhighway". --William Allen Simpson 02:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Superhighway" can refer to both freeways and high-speed surface roads. Thus it does not belong in the intro for freeway. --SPUI (T - C) 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not around here, it doesn't.^{[citation needed]} Yet another reason why "Freeway" shouldn't be used in the category system. except for specific locales. --William Allen Simpson 02:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limited access is either free or toll so it might be a valid parent but it should not replace either a freeway, autoban or toll road type of category. 208.57.64.97 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Freeways are free of cross traffic, not necessarily free as in beer. --SPUI (T - C) 10:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Limited-access roads" seems less than straightforward to me – I guess a private road would be a limited-access road – so if the description "Freeways and motorways" or the like has the same scope as "Limited-access roads", I'd say rename. Regards, David Kernow 03:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to category:Freeways and motorways per Chicheley. Calsicol 00:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. While the current name may have problems, at this point it is the likely the most common term and most generic. Changing to anything including the word freeway is simply wrong since a freeway is a type of Limited-access road. A toll road is also one and so could a parkway, turnpike, autobahn and who knows how many other names and types. If the consensus is to rename, another choice that would be more netural would be Category:Expressway. Vegaswikian 05:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further to my comment above, if "Expressway" has the same scope as the "limited-access roads" in the category, then rename to Category:Expressway per Vegaswikian above, as "Limited-access roads" more suggestive of private roads and the like than freeways, motorwats, etc. Regards, David Kernow 15:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Expressway" is an ambiguous term that sometimes refers to only freeways and sometimes to certain kinds of well-built surface roads. --SPUI (T - C) 09:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:High-speed roadways, as I was taught in driver's ed. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is very subjective and not the intent here. Many two-lane rural surface roads in Texas have speed limits higher than urban freeways. --SPUI (T - C) 07:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename. Limited access road is a much broader and more encompassing (and also less American centric) way to term them. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another "vote" that should not be counted, as my opening statements make it clear that "limited access roads" is not acceptable. --SPUI (T - C) 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another instance of you being uncivil and or pushing buttons as Tony suggests you do. My opinion is both valid and equal to yours. I don't accept your view in the opening premise, hence I've voiced my opposition to it. If you don't like it tough. You contention that limited access is inaccurate isn't born out by the "evidence" you provided. Limited access is by its very nature a road that has limited access (per your evidence). That is why the category is limited access. All freeways, autoroutes, and autobahns fit this description as do some expressways and highways. It's a much more encompassing category then the one you suggest and much less American centric. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your opinion is invalid in this case. Limited access includes city streets to which the city limits access. We want a category of freeways, not limited access roads. --SPUI (T - C) 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course my opinion is valid. I want a category for limited access roads, including ones that are city controlled. If you want a freeway one a second category should be created as this category encompasses more then a freeway one would. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So if I were to create Category:Freeways and motorways as a subcategory of this and move everything into it, you wouldn't oppose that action? That is equivalent to moving this to Category:Freeways and motorways and then creating a new parent, so in fact, you would be supporting a rename. --SPUI (T - C) 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would support the creation of the subcategory and the move of SOME of the material in the current category to it. However on a quick glance it doesn't appear that all of the information currently in "Limited access roads" would fit under "freeway". (This was the basis of my original objection too). For instance Expressway wouldn't fit under a Freeway category but does fit under limited access. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for explaining your position - I understand now. I still believe the vast majority if not all of the stuff in the present category would mowe to the new one - note that most of the roads named "Foo Expressway" are freeways. --SPUI (T - C) 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • True a large number of them are, however I don't think it would be accurate to put Autobahn under "freeway" as they're not actually freeways in the strictest sense of the term. So too would "Limited Access Roads by Country" not have a place in a freeway category. However obviously "Freeway" would be at home in a freeway category as would articles like Interstate 5. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Maybe I don't understand your position then - how is an autobahn not a freeway? --SPUI (T - C) 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Because it's an Autobahn. Maybe we're getting caught on semantics, but calling an Autobahn a freeway to me just smacks of systemic bias toward the American POV. Limited access road seems a more POV neutral term to use that can be applied to Autobahns, Freeways, Motorways etc... I think a "freeway" category for American Freeways and anywhere else Freeway is the prevailing term would be outstanding however. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • There is no POV in using a shorter term than "road with no cross traffic and access only at interchanges". It is just plain stupid to split identical concepts by the language or dialect used in the country. See for instance elevator and lift. --SPUI (T - C) 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • While I certainly see your point I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. For instance we could just as easily create and move to Category:Motorway and put "freeway" information under it. However it would be just as incorrect as placing Motorway information under freeway. I know Limited Access Road is a mouthfull, using it as a supercategory and then placing "freeway" and "motorway" and "autobahn" under it helps maintain neutrality of the POV. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Given that there's no POV involved, you're wrong. And using motorway is inaccurate, as there are non-motorway freeways in countries that use the term motorway - for instance the West Cross Route. --SPUI (T - C) 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Your example would not be characterized as a freeway. At best it can be called a Limited Access Road. Motorway and Freeway are not synonyms but are seperate terms which refer to different types of roads. For instance a Motorway is a dual carrageway limited access road which has traffic in the left-right configuration in Great Britain and other commonwealth nations. A freeway however is a limited access divided highway with traffic in the right-left configuation and is generally located in the United States and her territories. An autobahn is again another form of road entirely. I think this is where the disagreement lies. You are (and correct me if I'm wrong) classifying all motorways, autobahns, expressway with limited access as "freeways" however this is just not correct. Infact I'm not even sure it would be entirely correct within the US as freeway is the primary term only in serveral western states like California. Freeway is not a term that can encompass Motorway, Autoroute or Autobahn but is a uniquely American term for an American road. Limited Access Road however has no such connotation. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Wrong again. Princes Freeway, Monash Freeway, Freeways of Victoria... --SPUI (T - C) 23:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Australia uses "freeway" for some routes. How does this prove me wrong? Find a German route using Freeway, a Bristish Route using freeway, a Canadian route using freeway... Freeway is not an all encompassing term as you claim it is. Motorway, Autoroute, Autobahn, Freeway, are all names for the same level of route in different places in the world. None has the position to supercede the others. Only Limited Access Road or Divided Highway have that status. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • A freeway is a type of road, while a motorway is a class of road like an Interstate. There are freeways that are not motorways, just as there are freeways that are not Interstates. Unless you have another word that means "highway with no cross traffic and access only at interchanges", freeway will have to do. Or would you prefer the clunky Category:highways with no cross traffic and access only at interchanges? --SPUI (T - C) 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • I would prefer "Limited Access Road" as I stated a while ago. I believe that term is much more appropriate and encompassing of what I'm assuming you'd like to have in the category. For instance there are highways that while limited access divided highways are not freeways. For instance the Massachusetts Turnpike. This road is not a freeway but is a limited access divided highway and would have to be omitted if the category were moved to "freeway". So too would all autobahn articles. I don't subscibe to your assertion that Freeway is a type only. Freeway is just as much a class of road as Autobahn. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • The Massachusetts Turnpike is a freeway. Freeways are free of cross traffic, not necessarily free as in beer. A freeway is a highway with no cross traffic and access only at interchanges. Period. Autobahns are freeways. Interstates are freeways. Motorways are freeways. --SPUI (T - C) 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Wrong. Motorways and Autobahns are not freeways. If they were, there would be some reference to them as such in those countries. However there is not. Same goes for Autoroutes in France and Quebec. Freeway does not encompass these terms anymore then you can call Interstate 5 and Autobahn. Also if you read the definition (which I'll be happy to provide) of "Freeway" it is defined as "A highway without tolls." Freeways must be free for travel without tolls. Turnpikes aren't freeways.JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • That's like saying that the lift in a London Underground station is not an elevator, so we should have separate articles about elevators and lifts. You're wrong.
                                          • As for the definition, that's one of several definitions. If a freeway is truly "a highway without tolls", then any public road is a freeway. Common usage in some areas is to use "freeway" to mean a toll-free freeway, but the definition used by people that actually know their shit includes toll roads.
                                          • I've had enough of this crap. I'm going to move freeway to highway with no cross traffic and access only at interchanges if you don't stop. --SPUI (T - C) 00:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (moving indent) Why would it be wrong to have a seperate article for "lift"? Infact it would go a long way to countering US bias. As for the rest of the definition of freeway I left out it say, "see expressway". These terms everywhere I search are presented as meaning the same thing. All of them are different terms for Limited Access Divided Highway/Carriageways. Your suggested category is probably a bit much, but Category:Limited Access Divided Highway would probably be the ideal thing to move this too if we move it at all. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Motorway is also a type of road as well as a class. Read Motorway. As is an Autobahn or at least it was before you merged the article. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked this as needing a citation. --SPUI (T - C) 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be searching for one. For now I'd also like to point you toward our own Wiktionary which labels Motorway/Freeway/Autobahn as equal terms for the same type of road in different countries. So to does Websters and the Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge goes so far as to state the definition of freeway as "US usage of Motorway" which supports my position that Freeway being used is just another form of systemic bias. Infact in both of those publications Expressway is presented as the nominal parent of Autobahn/Freeway/Expressway as the trifecta are limited access versions of Expressways. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a motorway is "a wide road built for fast moving traffic travelling long distances". This is somewhat unclear, but our article on motorway makes it clear that bicycles are banned from motorways. On the other hand, they are allowed on some rural freeways, including many Interstates in the U.S. West. --SPUI (T - C) 00:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True our article is more indepth. But as the failure of that merge pointed out there is no consensus that motorway should be replaced with freeway or that they are identical. Granted they are all terms for the same type and class of road, but no one who knows anything would mistake a freeway for a motorway for an autobahn. For a similar example no one would mistake a McIntosh Apple for a Granny Smith Apple for a Golden Delicious Apple. Granted they're all Apples but they're not the same thing. Apple would be the super category, just as Limited Acces Road or Limited Access Divided Highway should be here which should then be subordinate to just Highway just as Apple would be under Fruit. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Without any encyclopedic value. What difference does it make on an encyclopedia if someone has a French great-grandmother? The category Category:French Americans, which we have, is perfectly fine for those people who are actually French Americans and have been described as such by a reliable source. Mad Jack 06:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant with Category:French Americans. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant with Category:French Americans. --M@rēino 19:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom--Smerus 21:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. But lets not kid ourselves that the X American categories are being used properly. I've seen people in six of them. Osomec 21:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper nom. 'French Americans' category serves the purpose. Thanks Hmains 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTw, please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Americans, which aims to replace the French American list with a list called "Americans of French descent". Which would be fairly pointless. Mad Jack 23:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Calsicol 00:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 07:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to by occupation.--Rockero 04:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Osomec 17:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom as I believe this is now the standard. David Kernow 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.Calsicol 00:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All other sub-cats of Category:Environmental organizations by country use the "organisations based in X" wording, such as Category:Environmental organisations based in New Zealand. I recommend changing this 'Environmental pressure groups of X' titled category to the 'organizations based in X' wording for consistency. Kurieeto 01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 02:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Olborne 17:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - more appropriate to the set of included articles. SP-KP 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and above. David Kernow 03:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Merchbow 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete all --William Allen Simpson 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by language

Category:English speakers

Category:French speakers

Category:Spanish speakers

Category:German speakers

Category:Italian speakers

Category:Portuguese speakers

Category:Dutch speakers

Category:Catalan speakers

Category:Danish speakers

Category:latin speakers

Category:Welsh-speaking people

All categories are ridiculous and don't connect between like articles. All categories have existed for at least a month and have barely any people on them, if any. Cesc Fabregas is the only spanish, english and french speaker in the world apparently. Yonatanh 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Not helpful in the slightest. Chicheley 02:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Category:English speakers is potentially larger than category:Living people and even less useful. Sumahoy 02:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, not a smart way to categorize. Also delete Category:Dutch speakers, Category:Portuguese speakers, and Category:German speakers. Merge the subcategories into the Category:Foo language cats. --Musicpvm 03:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could they be speedy deleted seeing how they've been empty for 4 days after they've been created which I see in the criteria for speedy deletion. Yonatanh 03:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait! Please don't delete yet! These categories came about after discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:Categorization (now archived here). The idea was to create a hierarchy of people categorized by language for all professions that relate to language. Thus there would be Category:Poets by language, Category:Actors by language, Category:Film directors by language, etc... It looks like no work happened on these categories after the discussion ended. But I think this is a very good idea, and makes MORE sense for these profession categories than having subcategories by nationality. Rather than deleting these, they should be fully populated. -- Samuel Wantman 06:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This user has amended his vote to delete below. Chicheley 10:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even if this is the idea, can you have a category as a sub-category of two categories so list of Hebrew-language poets would be under list of Hebrew speakers and under list of poets? Either way, I don't think the list of x speakers is needed as people can just go to the poets list in the first place, takes as many clicks. Yonatanh 16:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. I'd like to see it fully populated, per the discussion. If it doesn't work out, then I would support this CfD. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see this working, and I don't see the point. Olborne 17:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete all If this is taken up it will add category clutter to exactly the articles where it is worst already. For the overwhelming majority of people language is not a defining characteristic in an encyclopedic sense. When people want to jump from say New Zealand poets to Australian film directors using the search box will be at least as quick. Osomec 17:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all - unnecessary category clutter.--Smerus 21:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. These have far more potential to do harm than good. Calsicol 00:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. There are two ways: populating the categories or removing the categories. I think removing is easier for most of the people voting here, but I'm convinced these categories are useful. And, on top of that, there was a previous discussion as Samuel Wantman said. Mxcatania 17:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Category clutter. Golfcam 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how it is clutter to categorize writers, actors, film directors, etc... by the language they work in. For many occupations, language is much more useful and relevant than knowing nationality. -- Samuel Wantman 04:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all There is no way to stop such categories being added to the hundreds of thousands of articles about people who are not in a field in which language is important, where they would be mere clutter. Merchbow 08:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Welsh-speaking people. Most people speak the language of the country where they were born. It's probably fair to say that 100% of English people speak English. But for Wales the proportion of people who speak the language is much smaller, which I think is why the category was created. Deb 11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can hardly have categories for all the hundreds of minority languages but not for majority languages, and having them for majority languages, and English in particular, would be a nightmare. Speaking a particular language is important to the subject of a biographical article, but it is not a defining reason why they are worthy of an encyclopedia article. Nathcer 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it? Wouldn't you say that someone having been, for example, the first known author in the Welsh language, would be a defining reason? Deb 11:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • These categories aren't restricted to such examples, so your argument is rather like saying of Category:People over six feet tall, "Don't you think that being eight feet six inches tall would be a defining reason?". Nathcer 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Dahn 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per my comments above. Nathcer 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This can't have been thought through properly. What is to be gained from adding such a category to over a thousand articles about English footballers? Landolitan 10:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Every single person article would have to go in at least one of these. Not even close to worth it.--Mike Selinker 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I give up. As this is a loosing battle, I've created new categories to keep the subcategories for language professionals. They are Category:Languages by occupation and Category:Occupations by language. Please give me a chance to populate these before nominating them for CFD. I change my vote to "Delete" -- Samuel Wantman 09:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems strange to me to include all of these categories as a collective for deletion. There may be good reasons for keeping one category while none exist for keeping another. These categories should be voted on seperately IMHO, they represent different languages and the languages all have a different political/social status. For example Welsh, as a minority language (and one threatened with being lost up untill recently) has few really famous speakers, and the fact that a famous person speaks the language may be of some note. There is nothing norteworthy about a Danish person speaking Danish for example. Alun 11:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we delete the lot we don't need to get into the issue of deciding which speaker-language combinations are important and which aren't. Nathcer 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't get the logic of that. What is or isn't important? Some might argue that much (or even the vast majority on Wikipedia) isn't important. Isn't that why we talk of people being noteworthy rather than important? Alun 21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite. Unfortunately it's clear that many people are blanket voting on this issue because they are unfamiliar with the minority language issue. Deb 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't assume that people who disagree with you are ingorant. I am familiar with the issue and it has been addressed by other users who have voted delete. Chicheley 10:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Welsh & Catalan speaking category - Regardless of the fact that I'm a fluent Welsh speaker, I think it is important to raise the profile of any minority language, including making clear whether a famous person speaks it. No, having a category on English speaking people clearly is not viable, in most cases it is taken as a given that the celeb speaks English, within reason of course. However knowledge of a minority language is an interesting point, and can do much to raise a language's profile.GarethRhys 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Welsh & Catalan speaking category, as per GarethRhys. Alun 22:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all including the Welsh and Catalan categories. In India every language is a minority language so Alun's logic we would keep all Indian languages but only a few European ones. Given a choice between all or none, none wins hand down. Twittenham 10:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • But of course you would have to show that a notable person speaks the various Indian languages, would you not? Alun 11:31, 10 July 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.