< July 29	July 31 >

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 -- Drini 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Rename to be consistent with "People from X" for this Indian state, following up the batch nominated on July 29 [1]. The articles on ethnic groups have been moved out to Category:Tribes of Assam.--Mereda 08:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --musicpvm 16:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 04:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom. Jacek Kendysz 09:24, 3 August 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 -- Drini 02:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Anti-Arab people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• POV magnet, unencyclopedic ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as these are usually abused rather than truly helpful compendiums of bigots connected by no other common thread. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung Nonomy 13:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. Very well put. --M@rēino 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has to be POV and is open to abuse. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BlackJack. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not libel.--BigCow 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violates WP:NPOV Michael 04:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how is this different from Category:Anti-Semitic people? At first glance, they should both be kept or both deleted. —Ashley Y 07:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV²!! - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for all the same reasons expressed in these discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 17#Category:Anti-Semitic_people
  • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 29#Category:Anti-Semitic_people
• I don't think most of the people voting to delete have thought this through. You can't have it both ways, folks.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you will find that if no Jewish users had voted Category:Anti-Semitic people would have been deleted, so the consensus among non-Jewish users (probably something like 98% of users) is the same in both cases. Landolitan 21:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Landolitan 21:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung, and I'd vote delete on Category:Anti-Semitic people too. --Stormie 04:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not against the idea of this kind of category but looking at the people in it... Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have you all looked at Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment Bejnar 22:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic and open to abuse. Kaldari 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#People by group-hating —Ashley Y 01:45, 5 August 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 -- Drini 02:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British cycling to Category:Cycling in the United Kingdom

• Rename, To make the category consistent with the other "cycling by country" categories and to align with the conventional naming of categories. Ian3055 23:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match its siblings in Category:Sport in the United Kingdom Nonomy 13:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am totally against the site insistence on United Kingdom in titles. There are numerous case where British or Great Britain is the appropriate term. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that the United Kingdom equals Great Britain (which in turn equals England, Scotland and Wales) plus Northern Ireland. So Category:British cycling or Category:Cycling in Great Britain would exclude Northern Ireland. Is this your intention?  Apologies in advance for any misunderstanding. Regards, David Kernow 02:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Mais oui! 23:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Casper Claiborne 12:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 04:48, 2 August 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 -- Drini 02:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:JammXKids Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, List is being steadily depopulated via CSD and AfD. Only one remaining article is not currently a deletion candidate. DarkAudit 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The remaining article has loads of categories so will not be lost. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Landolitan 21:43, 2 August 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 Relisted here, none of the cats were tagged. --Kbdank71 14:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Bassists
• Category:Bass guitarists
• Category:Bassists by nationality
• Category:Bass guitarists by nationality

These form the root of a tangled tree, which I discovered when Category:British bass guitarists showed up on the uncategorized categories list. I think expert help is really needed here. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think is a problem? There are issues about how to categorize British musicians which is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, but other than that, it looks OK to me. -- Samuel Wantman 22:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the term bassist is correctly used both for musicians who play the double bass and for those that play the bass guitar. So, their categories are somewhat muddled together. ProveIt ^(talk) 14:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge except that I'm always trying to think of exceptions in cases like this. Bass guitarist is probably less ambiguous so make bassist the redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are more articles categorised in the English bassists, American bassists, and American rock bassists that anything in the bass guitarist categories. The term bassist is used far more often, than "bass guitarist" in the rock press. I know someone created British Bass guitarists, Scottish bass guitarists without actually bothering to check what other people were categorised as. I would think deleting the british bass guitarists, scottish bass guitarists, and and welsh bass guitarists would be the best option as the scottish bassists, english bassist, welsh bassist categories are the ones being used more.

I haven't looked at the articles but something that springs to mind is the double bass as played by Willie Dixon and other blues musicians. Is this only about bass guitar because if not it makes a difference? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The term bassist is used far more often, than "bass guitarist" in the rock press" - this could be a national thing, because I've heard the terms "bass guitarist" and "bass player" far far more often than "bassist" in the Australian rock press. --Stormie 04:13, 3 August 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 -- Drini 02:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC) All other subcategories of category:National Hockey League trophies and awards have "Trophy" or the equivalent.--Mike Selinker 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. BoojiBoy 02:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. DMighton 02:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I presume Art Ross is or was a person so you would hardly win a person. All trophies and awards should be named in full. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael04:49, 2 August 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 -- Drini 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled. Two weeks old, and still no members. No explanation as to what Triple Accreditation means. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Twittenham 15:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or listify; appears to be a list trying to be a category. David Kernow 03:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:49, 2 August 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 as nonsense, and we are not going to let a bunch of astroturfers decide stuff like this. --Cyde↔Weys 19:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Category:Gangster Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Pointless, unencyclopedic and occupied by only one wikipedian. Viridae^Talk 13:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Correction : Two wikipedians. --The Raven 03:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: One at the time of writing. Adding yourself just to be able to make a "correction" is a bit weird.18:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 15:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity category. --DarkAudit 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)--Polfbroekstraat 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the sole member of the category (at this time), I feel compelled to defend its existence to some degree. Firstly, I find it odd that this category was singled out from numerous others such as Category:Users_who_are_hot or Category:Crazy Wikipedians which seem to be just as "pointless" and "unencyclopedic," and are even in the same category: Category:Wikipedians by condition. If necessary, I will add some more users to the category. I know of many users who would be more than willing to add themselves to the category, since that seems to be the only real argument against this category. (Pointless and unencyclopedic apply to every category related to Wikipedians if using the same definition that is used in this context.) syphonbyte _(t|c) 23:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Don't you never not want to be no gangster? --The Raven 03:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep syphonbyte has a point... if similar pages are allowed then why isn't this one???--Charlesxavier 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well argued. All categories that apply to users are in fact useless, encyclopedic, and pointless. If you want to delete this category on the argument that it is useless, encyclopedic, and pointless, then let us delete all user related categories.--Polfbroekstraat 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...or move the lot to a separate wiki. Regards, David Kernow 03:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could do that, of course we'd have to hunt down every single wikipedian category and get rid of it. If this vote does indeed pass, then that sets the precedent to delte every single wikipedian category. syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense category that does not provide any context or serve any practical use in classifying contributors. - EurekaLott 03:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The presence of similar categories justifies this one. Moreover, there seem to be some irregularities with this procedure; I just voted a few minutes ago and it was deleted. -PhoenixPinion 04:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This contributes nothing of value to the project. Nonomy 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sure, many Wikipedian categories may be pointless, but at least they provide factual information about the editor, which may prove valuable in determining their knowledge and expertise or at least the point of view that they are coming from. On the other hand, this category seems to be a joke, and I doubt that anyone in it is actually a gangster (my apologies to any real gangsters who are working on this project). For what it's worth, I think that Category:Users who are hot and Category:Crazy Wikipedians should be deleted as well). --Cswrye 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am currently the third result on Google for "Mad Gangster," so I would assume that this qualifies me, at least, for the category. syphonbyte _(t|c) 16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If these "Wikipedians by condition" categories were going to be removed, it should have been part of the WP:GUS. I think it will take a similar (although hopefully less acrimonious) effort if anyone plans on removing the whole lot. --M@rēino 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense category. Most of the keep votes (well, all of them except the last one AFAIK) are by a group of users that have previously tried to keep articles and so on from deletion by voting together, which is a form of votestacking. Luckily CfD isn't a votecount, but still this kind of numerous keep-votes may give the impression that many independent editors feel the need to keep this one, while actually they are just one group and should be treated as such. Fram 18:54, 31 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 -- Drini 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German philatelists to Category:Philatelists

Category:French philatelists to Category:Philatelists

Category:Dutch philatelists to Category:Philatelists

Category:British philatelists to Category:Philatelists

Category:Belgian philatelists to Category:Philatelists

Category:American philatelists to Category:Philatelists

• Merge all with parent category, project consensus reached in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philately#Philatelists_category. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The project members have considered the usefulness of these sub-categories and all are in agreement that they serve no usefulness at all. All philatelists should be included in the main category as discussed. It is unlikely that there will be many additions to the category in future. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is normal to subdivide by nationality. Twittenham 15:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Firstly a Comment If you are not a project member please respect the views, opinions and unanimous consensus of the Philately Project and don't force us to use subcategories that don't work for us even though they may work in some other topics. I can tell you, from more than 25 years studying and researching philately that if I am looking for a philatelist whose name I happen to know, I would never go digging for that person under a specific country and I may not even know where he/she was from anyway. I expect to find their name listed simply as a philatelist and the article will tell me where they hail from.ww2censor 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support for merging of these subcategories because they have been discussed in the Philately Project and at the moment there are only 21 total entries (it has been that way for some time), the usefulness of country subcategories is questioned and not agree on even though this might be a suggested way. There can be exceptions and this is one of those exception cases which is why it is nominated. Unfortunately, so far, User:Twittenham takes the simplistic view of what is normal and does not see this exception as possible (please reconsider your position when more comments and votes have been made). Maybe he, and others considering this merge, would firstly read the discussion and then agree with the project's unanimous consensus [2] these subcategories need to be merged into the main category mainly for the following reasons:
  1 - There are too few entries
  2 - Users have to dig too far to find people whose names they might be familiar with but don't know their nationality
  3 - Nationality is essentially irrelevant to philatelists so the subcategories are redundant.
  For postage stamps there are country categories but they don't belong here, not now, and maybe never. ww2censor 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Subcategorisation by nationality facilities access by all users, not just experts, and that is the main purpose of the category system. Piccadilly 18:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. If you look, you will find that we have a total of 24 entries in the subcats. Two of these cats have but a single entry and one has two entries with the average of the 6 being less then four. Having 100 entries in the main category would not be excessive. So given that the parent would not be split because of its size, why should we object to a Wikiproject's request to do away with the subcats? If the number were higher I likely would have a different answer, but given the numbers involved here, defering to the project seems the correct action. Is there some burning need to group these subcats by nationality to be listed somewhere else? Vegaswikian 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support With so few members, the subcats are just in the way. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Should the main category get too large, then we can subdivide. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Subcategorizing by nationality is a custom at Wikipedia not a strict policy. It grew out of the need to subcategorize before there were category table of contents. Also, it is possible to merge all the categories and also keep the subcategories populated. If this were done, ((Allincluded)) should be put on Category:Philatelists. People looking to browse through all Philatelists would be able to, and people looking for Philatelists from specific countries would find them. It is a win-win solution. If this is agreeable to the wikiproject, then there is no need to even continue this CFD because nothing will be deleted or renamed. -- Samuel Wantman 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main value of subcategorisation is actually that it increases the number of routes to a particular article without increasing the total number of categories on an article, and indeed sometimes while reducing them. I know you favour use of Template:Allincluded, but widespread use of it will exacerbate the largest problem with categorisation of biographical articles, which is category clutter. Chicheley 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duplication answers the concerns of almost everyone here by adding ONE category to every philatelists article. It a small price to pay to solve problems like the one outlined here and elsewhere. I don't think that small amount of "clutter" is going to make it harder for anyone to find the categories they are looking for. -- Samuel Wantman 19:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Walkerma 23:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Number of entries way to small on subcat pages & per project consensus. Joe I 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a member of the project who took part in the original discussion, I obviously support the proposal but I would like to say here that the suggestion made by Samuel Wantman seems to me to be worthy of consideration by the project members. I'll take it forward. --AlbertMW 05:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result The members think it's a great idea but not this time. They want the sub-cats removed on this occasion. See updated project forum discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philately#Philatelists_category

Thanks all the same, Samuel. It was a very good suggestion. --AlbertMW 12:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support : nationality is not the more important part of a philatelist's personality. Sebjarod 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Philatelists are human beings, so nationality is an important part of their personality. Nonomy 13:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is a mounting trend for "project members" to claim ownership of categories. It is policy that individuals don't own articles, and this policy should be extended to cover projects and categories. Presenting an attempted fait accompli isn't going to win my support. Chicheley 13:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct that individuals do not own articles. Decisions are supposed to be made by Consensus. Having people discussing this among the editors who work on the subject in a WikiProject with the input of the larger Wikipedia community is EXACTLY the way these decisions should be made. (For the record, I am not a member of the WikiProject involved here.) -- Samuel Wantman 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very wise words, Samuel. There is a big difference between one member of a project nominating a category and a unanimous consensus of members making the nomination. I think that is something all readers should bear in mind, especially as the project members are presumably the most knowledgeable about both the subject and the project. As for an attempted fait accompli, I do not understand how a consensus decision put forward for general discussion qualifies as a fait accompli. Does anyone? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree that the number of entries is too small, maybe when there are more entries (50+). Johann Wolfgang 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merger per nominationTim! 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Chicheley. --Mais oui! 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Kirill Lokshin 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support per nom. and completely agree with Samuel Wantman re consensus --GeorgeWilliams 10:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The subcategories will increase the number of visitors to philately articles as people will come across them without looking. Casper Claiborne 12:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How will the subcategories increase the number of visitors? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support waste of space... Michael 04:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support if Wikipedia ever has a complete enough coverage of philatelists to require the subdivision of the category, this can be done. At this time, a single category seems more appropriate! Physchim62 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as unwise and uncivil effort at article ownership by the WikiProject. If we're going to include George V of the United Kingdom, category:Philatelists may be expected to grow without bound. Septentrionalis 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your last statement is factually incorrect. There really are very few "famous" philatelists. George V and Roosevelt were the most distinguished in terms of collection and contribution. Other well-known people interested in stamps, such as Elizabeth II, are stamp collectors only - there is a difference. The category is unlikely to grow by very much at all. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Comment I am very surprised that two people on this page have accused the WikiProject of attempting to "own" the categories and articles in the project. Why have we started this discussion if we don't want other people's views? The point is that we are interested in the subject and we are developing the project and so we are going to be the ones to propose changes to categories if we think they are necessary. Obviously the project would not develop at all if we were not working on it! I cannot believe that some people evidently cannot see that. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to those people who spend all their time on these discussion pages that they join a project themselves and get involved, so that they can understand what is actually going on in Wikipedia. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a project member I completely agree with BlackJack re the fact that there are very few "famous philatelists": the example of the Queen as a collector only is pertinent - her grandfather was an actual student of philately; we would not include the Queen in our category. I am also concerned about these "ownership" and "fait accompli" allegations which are stupid - anyone who refers to the project forum can surely see that we reached consensus after a quite heated debate. It seems to me that we have conspiracy theorists at large! I never read such rubbish. --AlbertMW 11:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I have faith in Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately to have made the correct decision here. --Stormie 06:51, 3 August 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 -- Drini 03:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Churches in Vancouver to Category:Churches in Canada[reply]

• Merge, After commenting on the proposed merge of Category:Vancouver Churches into this category (see discussion here), it is apparent there is no need for Category:Churches in Vancouver, either. Both Category:Vancouver Churches and Category:Churches in Vancouver only have one entry, both same article (Canadian Memorial Church & Centre for Peace, to which I just added a ((prod)) template). The only other church in Vancouver with an article is Christ Church Cathedral, Vancouver. I doubt many other churches in Vancouver merit their own article. There is no need for a separate, sparsely populated category for Vancouver. Agent 86 01:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nomination - seems eminently sensible. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I'm surprised there are so few churches in Vancouver. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per nom. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There are hundreds of churches in Vancouver. --Usgnus 04:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to be clear, it's not that there aren't many churches in Vancouver, the point is that there aren't many "notable" churches in Vancouver, or at least enough to warrant a category. Agent 86 07:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Michael 04:46, 2 August 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 -- Drini 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The single article is probably enough. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination - the article already has sufficient categories. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sufficient categories. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Surely a one-article topic. Casper Claiborne 12:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:45, 2 August 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.