Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 9

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 all. Syrthiss 14:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Desi culture

J

• Category:Desi Jews (this was already deleted once!)

M

• Category:Desi media
• Category:Desi music

P

• Category:Desi people
• Delete - there's a South Asia category.--Dangerous-Boy 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not familiar to most English speakers, I don't believe. Osomec 00:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For what it's worth, I'm a native-English speaking American and I thought Desi was widely understood among English speakers. While there's no difference between Desi people and South Asian people, there should be room for separate attention to things like Desi culture and Desi music, as far as those carry a different connotation than simply South Asian. - Reaverdrop 05:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not in mainstream use in the UK yet, as the term used is usually just "Asian" (which means South Asian, not East Asian). Occurences on the BBC website are largely restricted to the Asian and youth music networks. Bhoeble 09:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content into Category:South Asia and rename subcats to Category:South Asian culture, Category:South Asian Jews, Category:South Asian media, category:South Asian music, and Category:South Asian people. it s the familiarity of the term "Desi" and not that there is a collective identity and culture to the region that voters here have questioned. Mayumashu 13:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not well known usage. Arniep 21:33, 16 May 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 merge them back and burn the category re-creator (irish prisoners was just deleted per may 7 and 1 day later recreated). Syrthiss 14:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion are:

• Category:Gays of Oz
• Category:Homeboys of Oz
• Category:Latin Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Italian Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Bikers of Oz
• Category:Others of Oz
• Category:Irish Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Prisoners of Oz
• Category:Muslim Prisoners of Oz
• Category:The Aryan Brotherhood in Oz
• Any more I may have missed

I really don't see how any of these are necessary categorizations. At most they are possible material for a list, but I really just seem to think that they are Ozcruft. Also if you guys don't agree with me about the deletion, at the very least they need renaming. --Cyde Weys 17:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to "(Foo) prisoners in Oz" (e.g., "Aryan Brotherhood prisoners in Oz" with no "The"), except for "Others of Oz" (rename as "Unaligned prisoners in Oz"). The overall idea of sorting the characters by gang seems great since it's a big group otherwise.--Mike Selinker 19:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if these are kept, the category names should include "Oz (TV series)", so as to avoid confusion with Category:Oz. - EurekaLott 07:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all. Over-categorisation of fancruft. --BrownHairedGirl 11:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Oz (TV series) characters. No need for this level of sub-sub-sub-categorisation. This TV series currently has almost as many subcats for characters as Star Trek but unlike that programme hasn't run to 4 shows each with multiple series, 10 (?) film sequels, spin-off novels, games etc. Valiantis 14:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to parent category per Valiantis. --Vossanova 16:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per Valiantis. Postdlf 17:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess Merge all sounds good too. --Cyde Weys 18:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per Valiantis -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per Valiantis Palendrom 03:44, 11 May 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 upmerge to fictional british knights as per the KC cat discussion. Syrthiss 15:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No room for expansion as per the current nomination of Category:Fictional Knights Commander of the British Empire at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 8. Tim! 17:26, 9 May 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 merge, bring the delete nom if you feel it needs to be deleted (since the 2nd cat wasnt tagged). Syrthiss 15:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two categories serve the same purpose. Conscious 16:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge and delete --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete Thryduulf 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - These are totally unencyclopedic and worthless categories. They don't help write the encyclopedia at all, and the encyclopedia is the entire purpose of Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete Robwingfield 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both--Doc ^ask? 11:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Frivolous. Runcorn 19:49, 16 May 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 rename. Syrthiss 15:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This cat name isn't quite as ambiguous as the "topological space properties" one, but it's still not clear that it's talking about properties of groups (rather than, say, properties shared in a group). Also I just think my proposed name sounds better. --Trovatore 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Melchoir 22:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Runcorn 19:48, 16 May 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 rename as nom. Syrthiss 15:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid ambiguity (a "topological space property" sounds like a space property that happens to be topological) --Trovatore 16:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, that sounds better. How exactly do we move all the entries? Vipul 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Assuming the debate comes out in favor of the move, someone here will take care of it. I think they've got a bot for that. --Trovatore 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How about Category:Topological properties instead? It's the shortest option, it still has the important word first, and it follows the precedent of Topological property. Melchoir 22:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would be OK with me, except I think "properties of" is the more generally applicable combining form. How would you rename Category:Group properties? I suppose it could be Category:Group-theoretic properties, but that's a little heavy. --Trovatore 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-topic Please, everyone, when you respond to these, go to the edit summary and take out the colons before the word "Category". Otherwise it's not possible to get to the right section by clicking on the edit summary. --Trovatore 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I like the move proposal for groups, and I'll go support it. But for this case, I don't think uniformity is so important. If we later develop a whole bunch of these categories and almost all of them have one form, I'll change my mind. Melchoir 22:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I don't like Category:Topological properties because not all of these are properties of spaces. Runcorn 19:48, 16 May 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 rename to plural. Syrthiss 15:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains an article with the same name. Conscious 15:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Update: Folajimi is going to populate this category. I advised him(?) to use Category:Working groups instead. Conscious 17:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/merge to Category:Working groups. David Kernow 23:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge as above. --BrownHairedGirl 11:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge per nom. Runcorn 19:44, 16 May 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 delete. Syrthiss 15:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned in favour of Category:Wine critics and Category:Winemakers. Conscious 15:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 23:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 00:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. --BrownHairedGirl 11:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rather infelicitous name. Runcorn 19:43, 16 May 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 delete. Syrthiss 15:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Flash artists. (blanked by creator) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 23:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant. Runcorn 19:42, 16 May 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 delete people by deletion origin. Syrthiss 15:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Argentine people by ethnic or national origin -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant. Runcorn 19:42, 16 May 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 deleted --Cyde Weys 17:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 13:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete We should not have user catgories on controversial topics. Bhoeble 16:01, 9 May 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 rename. Syrthiss 15:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category needs to mention that it holds Wikipedians. I'm not sure that the proposed name is accurate though, any ideas? Conscious 13:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Support as nom or to Category:Expatriate Candaian Wikipedians in the United States (assuming my spelling is correct). Regardless, "Candadians" needs a capital C. Thryduulf 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; "Expatriate" seems redundant. Runcorn 19:40, 16 May 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 del. Syrthiss 15:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least needs renaming to Category:Ethnic groups of Vietnam (as all ethnic groups categories). It's also empty and should be deleted if there's no need in it. Conscious 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as empty. (I'm presuming Conscious meant to suggest correct naming would be Category:Ethnic groups in Vietnam, but delete anyway). Valiantis 13:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's what I meant :) Conscious 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as proper catehory exists. Pavel Vozenilek 21:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplicate. Runcorn 19:38, 16 May 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 deleted --Cyde Weys 18:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should never have created this in the first place, and they've brought it back anyway. --Hughcharlesparker 11:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. There are too many such categories. --BrownHairedGirl 11:26, 10 May 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 renamerry. Syrthiss 15:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in line with other County Londonderry categories and the Derry/Londonderry naming agreement. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 16:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename logical consistancy. Djegan 17:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per all. Snoutwood (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Palmiro | Talk 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's called Derry by the majority of residents. (Derry Boi 19:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename per nom. Runcorn 19:34, 16 May 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 renamerry 2: the renaming. Syrthiss 15:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in line with other County Londonderry categories and the Derry/Londonderry naming agreement. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Snoutwood (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Palmiro | Talk 13:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Djegan 15:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's called Derry by the majority of residents. (Derry Boi 19:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename per nom. Runcorn 19:36, 16 May 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 rename and merges. Syrthiss 15:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, merge subcategories into this category:

• Category:Railway stations serving airports in England (14 articles)
• Category:Railway stations serving airports in Wales (1 article)
• Category:Railway stations serving airports in Scotland (3 articles)
• Category:Railway stations serving airports in Northern Ireland (2 articles)

There isn't really any need for 20 articles to be split between 4 categories when there is a perfectly good (if poorly named) supercategory. Thryduulf 09:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename and merge as per nom. Valiantis 13:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename and merge as per nom. Ian3055 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and merge per nom. David Kernow 23:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and merge Too many categories here. Runcorn 19:33, 16 May 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 do not merge Tim! 10:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per style for municipality cats —Blotwell 19:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after question. Vegaswikian 05:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge. Municipalities are in a country. - EurekaLott 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I believe "Municipalities of" is better. The other form is just like if we had municipalities all over the world and some of them were "in Romania". More important than that, it keeps consistency with several other existing categories. Afonso Silva 13:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Valiantis, I change my stance to Oppose. Afonso Silva 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Please see the small print at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country" which I quote "However where the designation "municipality" is used solely for urban settlements (eg Romania) or where it is the only official designation for cities and towns (eg. Spain) the category takes the "in" form." The point being that in some countries, municipalities are subdivisions (and "of" is correct), in other countries they are settlements (and "in" is correct). Valiantis 13:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge as per Valiantis Bhoeble 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge as above. Osomec 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Off-topic question Over in the lists area, we have Lists of cities and Lists of municipalities. Are these categories redundant? --JeffW 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course not. Where either lists or categories make the other redundant it is usually considered to be the lists which should go, but in most cases both can stay. Bhoeble 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I used the wrong word. I was asking if the lists are redundant. What's the difference between a municipality and a city? (I said it was off topic) --JeffW 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)--JeffW 18:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe there is no absolute difference that applies to all countries. Each country will have a legal (or quasi-legal) definition of what constitutes either a city, or a municipality, or both. As per my comment above, municipality may refer to a subdivision or a settlement dependent on the country in question. Valiantis 14:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose I prefer the change, but not if it is against Wikipedia style. Runcorn 19:32, 16 May 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 rename to Types of wager Tim! 10:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cap Melchoir 09:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after question. Vegaswikian 05:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• shouldnt it be Category:Types of wager? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Types of wager per BL Lacertae. David Kernow 23:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It should be plural so not Category:Types of wager. Recury 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "types of wager" is plural. its the "types" that needs to be pluralised. to make the "wager" plural is bad grammar. You don't talk about different types of wagers, you talk about different types of wager. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, this is that British English construction. Yes, I do talk about different types of wagers, just like I would talk about zoos having different types of animals, and no that isn't bad grammar. But if you want to use British for the category name, I don't mind. I never go there anyway. Recury 13:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • neither do i. ive never been to britain in my life. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, in any case, google hits for the phrase "types of wager": 118, google hits for the phrase "types of wagers":28,000. Not to start another discussion but "types of bets" returns 72,000 pages. Recury 03:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I get 25,000 for "types of wagers" google searches with 120 for "types of wager" so that should be that. 2005 00:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Types of wagers. What the heck is types of wager? Types of wagers is right. Types of wager doesn't make any sense. The category is fine as it is, but more correct as Types of wagers. Types of bets would be fine too, but there is no reason to rename it since it fits under Wagering. Not sure why this got sidetracked from speedy renaming, but Types of wagers should be done promptly, or the note on the category should be changed to something other than "speedy". 2005 00:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Types of wager. What the heck is types of wagers? Types of wager is right. Types of wagers doesn't make any types of senses. The category is not particularly fine as it is, and would be correct as Types of wager. Types of bet would be fine too, but there is no reason to rename it to that since it fits under Wagering. It is clear why this got sidetracked from speedy renaming, since Types of wager is correct and should be done promptly. In any case the note on the category should be changed to something other than "speedy". BTW, I notice that Category:Types of surgery is listed further up the page. Are you suggesting that should be Category:Types of surgeries? Grutness...wha? 05:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you joking? Types of cars... who says types of car? Types of games... who says types of game? Types of books... who says types of book? This is just silly. Types of wagers is not only correct, it is obviously what should be used in that virtually no one anywhere uses "types of wager". "Types of wagers" in quotes shows 26,000 Google searches, most importantly in use by actual wagering outfits online. "Types of wager" in quotes shows 116 Google searches. Wikipedia should not just out of the blue create a totally non-standard usage that makes no sense. In any case such an extreme case of non-standard usage should not be considered in a "speedy" rename. No original research also means no original coining of phrases... 2005 05:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Of course I'm not joking. Saying "Types of cars" sounds as bizarre and unnatural as saying "fields of grains". "Types of games" sounds as silly as "games of footballs". "Types of wager" is a perfectly acceptable usage and has been for a long long time. And, if we're talking google searches, "types of car" outnumbers "types of cars", and there are 158000 hits for "types of game". I must admit to being very surprised at the number of hits for "Types of wager", since using "wagers" at the end sounds very odd. Grutness...wha? 08:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unlike surgery, grain and football, you can't use the word "wager" to speak of the concept as a whole. Both "types of car" and "types of cars" are acceptable judging by google hits. I'm sorry that you and a few others think "types of wagers" sounds odd but it's obviously the common usage. Here are many more examples which probably sound odd to you but are also correct. Notice that when they are talking about the concept as a whole they use "Types of military" or etc. but when they are talking about many seperate entities they use "Types of companies," "Types of restaurants," "Types of words," "Types of roller coasters," "Types of corporations," "Types of streets," etc., etc., etc. Recury 12:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category could also simply be called "Wagers", or better still just delete the thing and have the articles listed in the parent Category:Wagering where they fit just fine. 2005 06:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Either "types of wagers" or "types of wager" sounds fine to me (an American), so I don't really think this is a Yank/Brit thing. The latter is more logical, though, so on balance I'd say let's use "types of wager". --Trovatore 06:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a Yank/Brit thing. UK betting sites use "types of wagers" plus covers.co.uk, thedogs.co.uk, etc. US-facing sites ranging from fbi.gov, gamblingtimes.com, bodog, betonsports.com, etc etc all use the standard "types of wagers" term. Virtually no one uses types of wager. So, it's not a question of US versus UK, but between the widely held standard and an invented term not used in wagering. Similarly the category could be called "wagers" but would make no sense as "wager". In any case, the whole point of the redundant category is problem. It should just be merged with Category:Wagering and there would be no issue. It's not like the four articles in the parent Wagering category couldn't be joined by the twenty in the types subcategory. Basically there is a "wagers" subcategory of "wagering" and I can't see why anyone would make an argument that this NEEDS to be in place. 2005 20:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category, move articles to parent catetegory Wagering. To try and head off any more semantic discussions, and probably to do it right in the first place, how about just moving all the articles to Category:Wagering? This subcat is a bit over categorization anyway. The bet and bets articles are all "wagering" so there should be no problem getting rid of this uneeded level. 2005 06:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "types of wager" Runcorn 19:31, 16 May 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 rename as per BL Lacertae's suggestion Tim! 10:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CapitalisationJQ 08:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after comment. Vegaswikian 05:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• any reason why not Category:Underlying principles of microeconomic behavior? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Underlying principles of microeconomic behavior. Bhoeble 16:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Underlying principles of microeconomic behavior per BL Lacertae (as colons within category names not to be encouraged?) David Kernow 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Underlying principles of microeconomic behavior as per BL Lacertae. --BrownHairedGirl 11:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename We need consistent capitalisation. Runcorn 19:28, 16 May 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I moved everything to Category:Filipino martial arts by hand. -Objectivist-C 02:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (with gratis hand massage to same). David Kernow 23:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well done to Objectivist-C Runcorn 19:27, 16 May 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 delete Tim! 10:27, 21 May 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 delete Tim! 10:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV-filled articles masquerading as categories. - EurekaLott 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - POV, no articles now, only one category Category:Urban studies and planning. Poorly named category. Clubmarx | Talk 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category is NOT inherently POV, but it is ill-named --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. David Kernow 23:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, but remove POV editorialising. In Ireland, planning corruption has been one of the big political issues of the last ten years (see The Flood Tribunal), and it must be a similarly live issue in many other parts of the world. I'm sure that there are other articles on wikipedia which belong in this category; and if not, there ought to be! --BrownHairedGirl 11:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, but if kept or recreated, rename without faulty capitalization and using something less vague than "of planning", e.g. use "of X planning" or the like. Regards, David Kernow 19:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't see point. Runcorn 19:26, 16 May 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 delete Tim! 10:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a productive categorization scheme. - EurekaLott 01:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was hoping it'd catch on quite a bit more than it did and provide a source for amusing references Discordians could waste time with. It appears it hasn't, though, so I'm not oppose to deleting it. On the other hand, a little more publicity may help it fulfill it's original purpose. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every sympathy - a good try - didn't work. Runcorn 19:25, 16 May 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 Moved to 'History of Serbia' --Cyde Weys 18:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to match the format of the other subcategories of Category:History of Europe. - EurekaLott 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Just like the others. Afonso Silva 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nomination, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl 11:25, 10 May 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 delete. AndyZ 21:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic category cruft. Also, indicative of original research, much like its counterpart, List of look-alike porn stars, which is currently going through an AFD vote. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 21:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as poorly spelt; incorrectly capitalised; and, per nom, of little if any encyclopedic use. David Kernow 23:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing going for it. --Vossanova 17:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Palendrom 03:50, 11 May 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.