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

The result of the debate was keep (8 to 4, non recent accounts only). Syrthiss 14:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly vanity, non-encyclopedic information that has no encyclopedic value RabinicLawyer 22:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I believe TrollHistorian has some SA jealousy considering they are trying to get most of the articles about Something Awful deleted.
• Delete, most of the pages are fancruft and are linked to directly from SomethingAwful, a category isn't needed for child pages of a single page. --TrollHistorian 23:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category is populated and helps organize other articles. Just because those articles are also AfD'ed doesn't mean this can go right now. --waffle iron ^talk 23:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per waffle iron. Gail Wynand 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why should it be deleted? Someone has SomethingAwfulenvy. Ok, sure. You don't agree with the website. I don't agree with Hitler, you don't see me putting HIM up for deletion.

• Keep It's a useful category about a fairly popular website. I see no need to delete it. --AlbertHerring 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Relevant as per AlbertHerring. 75K+ users for just part of the site. Donkay ote 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per waffle iron and AlbertHerring. --ElKevbo 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The information here is relevant and informative. There is no reason it should be up for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kloaked00 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete - removal of CfD header suggests bad faith. RabinicLawyer 05:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt you have room for accusations for bad faith at this point. Donkay ote 13:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No one is suggesting removing the something awful article, just the superfluous category, which serves little purpose. 204.191.190.187 06:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft. Do TV shows with 75,000 viewers have categories? No. Bhoeble 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category doesn't seem to serve any purpose. Ashibaka tock 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Something Awful is one of the most popular sites on the Internet, I'm sick of people using made up words like "fancruft" as a reason to delete an article. Sonic Hog
• Keep If there is a Category:Slashdot, there's no reason why there shouldn't be the same thing for Something Awful.--Theloniouszen 02:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per everyone else, and for the simple fact that RabinicLawayer is just a cronic deleter of anything he dosn't like. --The_stuart 18:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and comment that nominator seems rather grumpy. Kuzaar 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There shouldn't be a category for slashdot either. Wikipedia is skewed towards geek interests and that does its reputation no good. Sumahoy 17:28, 29 April 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 14:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both created by a sockpuppet of a vandal account; and they're pointless anyway. Delete both. -Big Smooth 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Delete per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 14:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "who". For grammatical reasons. I'm using it on my userpage. My country is slightly authoritarian, so this expresses my sentiments perfectly. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 01:59, 5 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. Syrthiss 14:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Based in" looks like a duplicate, or the start of a very very slippery slope. Merge Ian3055 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Scranchuse 19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a substantive difference between a company being "of" a country (meaning "registered in"? "accountable to"?) and being "based in" (but not "of") a country?  (And would Category:Jordanian companies contravene a "X of Y" vs "Yian X" consensus...?)  Thanks in advance for enlightenment, David Kernow 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should think so. Companies like Sony or Deutsche Banc have major corporate offices *based in* the USA, but are certainly not "of" the USA, rather, Japan and Germany, respectively. Conversely, Twentieth Century Fox and Ford have corporate offices abroad, but are clearly "of" the USA. 12.73.198.138 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; the only member of the cateogry (Maktoob) appears to be of/based/founded in Jordan, so:

• Rename to Category:Jordanian companies. David Kernow 21:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a guideline on this and "Companies of" is standard. Scranchuse 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, yes. Apologies; I checked here rather than here. Regards, David Kernow 01:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 14:20, 26 April 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 14:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please rename this so it matches the categories for other English counties (see category:Local government of England. Camestone 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as I have suggested. Camestone 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Scranchuse 19:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 14:20, 26 April 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. Syrthiss 14:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Category:Lists of console games was added recently without knowing about the more general category. I don't think there's much reason to maintain a distinction between Console and Computer games since these days most titles are released on both. JeffW 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Scranchuse 19:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Golfcam 22:28, 27 April 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 per creator --UkPaolo 19:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a proposed guideline. I mistakenly created the page in the Category namespace. Of course it was supposed to go in the *Wikipedia* namespace.

• Speedy delete This can be speedy deleted, see WP:CSD.

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 14:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only decade or year based category for ships, and contains one entry which is well categorized elsewhere already. Existing chronological categories are by era, not by specific years or decades (for good reason!), so this needs to go. Josh 06:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, then go it must. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think the "modern ships" categories need another look. They will at some point anyway. Bhoeble 08:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Scranchuse 19:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. David Kernow 22:20, 25 April 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 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It currently has three irrelevant entries and is not likely to be populated with appropriate entries. Note that environmental science is not the same as environmental issues. Alan Liefting 05:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The category seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what the title means. Bhoeble 08:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If this goes then the corresponding section of List of themed timelines should be removed as well. --JeffW 13:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it Mr. Liefting seems to be quibbling the wrong argument. -- Hard Raspy Sci 18:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you state a case for equating the final effects of anthropogenic change and the scientific study of environmental science? Alan Liefting 23:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 02:00, 5 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 as nominated. Syrthiss 14:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find what I was looking for, and that was because it was in here. It's hard to say how it was decided which things are places and which are not. It looks like New York is the only one of the fifty states that has this category. Merge Scranchuse 00:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 08:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Communities in New York to match Category:Communities in California, Category:Communities in Ohio, Category:Communities in Pennsylvania, etc. - EurekaLott 19:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a category of communities, it also contains islands and the like. And I don't think those categories are necessary either. I would expect to see towns etc directly in geography. Bhoeble 14:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, if the category is renamed, the islands category should be removed. I think there's some value to having an umbrella category for the cities/towns/villages/etc. of each state. In most cases, they're not included in the geography categories, as in Category:Indiana or Category:Iowa. - EurekaLott 03:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. Geography is better, but for the sake of clarity wouldn't it be better to have it as Geography of New York State? Grutness...wha? 01:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it would, but some Americans seem to object to that clarification. However if you nominate all the New York State categories for renaming I will vote for that. But it should be all or one, not just one. Bhoeble 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Sumahoy 17:29, 29 April 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 14:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: To match category:Companies by country and its other subcategories. Nathcer 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as above. Nathcer 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Bhoeble 08:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom. Scranchuse 19:45, 25 April 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 14:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: to match the categories for other countries in category:Media companies by nationality. There are many unusual categories for South Korean companies, and some I don't even understand. More nominations will follow when I have time. Nathcer 00:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as above. Nathcer 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Bhoeble 08:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename, and thanks for trudging through the disaster left by a certain editor-who-shall-remain-nameless. -- Visviva 10:32, 30 April 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 14:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: to match Category:Clothing manufacturers Nathcer 00:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Nathcer 00:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why the presentation has gone wrong. Nathcer 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a stray carriage return, which I've removed. Oh, and rename per nom. -choster 02:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Bhoeble 08:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, and thanks again. -- Visviva 10:33, 30 April 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.