- 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 all K1Bond007 20:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I came across the NLP writers category first and I had to work out which of six terms with this acronym was relevant:
- category:NLP to Category:Neuro-Linguistic Programming
- category:NLP Wikiproject to Category:Neuro-Linguistic Programming Wikiproject
- category:NLP concepts and methods to Category:Neuro-Linguistic Programming concepts and methods
- category:NLP predecessors to Category:Neuro-Linguistic Programming predecessors
- category:NLP writers to Category:Neuro-Linguistic Programming writers
- Rename all
Calsicol (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as a reasonable proposal to eliminate abbreviations from titles where potential ambiguity arises. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 19:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rename all to remove confusing abbreviations -
«ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»
Talk |
Contrib's
16:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
- 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 K1Bond007 19:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rename - as per naming conventions. Darwinek 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Remame per above -
«ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»
Talk |
Contrib's
16:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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 K1Bond007 19:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Pointless category with only one article. LesleyW 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Useless category. -- Thorri 15:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No argument. siafu 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Useless -
«ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»
Talk |
Contrib's
16:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
Category:Military people by nation to Category:Military people by nationality plus the subcategories
- 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 K1Bond007 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The use of "em" dashes wasn't supported when this category was originally named, but it is now. CLW 15:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename. This should be a speedy, I think. siafu 18:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rename. Shouldn't this be an n dash (–), without surrounding spaces? 22:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC) comment by Leandrod
- That was my initial thought, but no - see User_talk:Duncharris#Category:Darwin_--_Wedgwood_family CLW 22:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedily rename per nom -
«ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»
Talk |
Contrib's
16:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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 per nom K1Bond007 19:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
not sure how the naming conventions apply to this but the name its got doesnt look quite right. i wouldnt mind if someone comes up with a better name tho although Southern United States is what the article about its called. BL kiss the lizard 11:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support - "U.S. South" is a really bad name and doesn't give the right picture, "Southern United States" works much better. -- Thorri 15:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Support Choalbaton 20:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename to match article title. siafu 18:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support New name sounds better and is easier to understand -
«ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»
Talk |
Contrib's
16:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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 K1Bond007 19:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Since WP:IAR doesn't seem to fit in any existing category, somebody figured it requires its own category. Imo, that's both oxymoronic and pointless. Delete. R adiant _>|< 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Whoever created it was probably ignoring all rules when doing so ☺. -- cesarb 00:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It was created by User:Snowspinner, an admin with an interesting relationship with the notion of "ignore all rules" (gleaned from user page). User:Ceyockey 04:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete A category for one page is silly.-- Sean| Bla ck 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- comment - don't we have a Category:Wikipedia guidelines that this page would go in? Grutness... wha? 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ignore this category. siafu 18:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Illiterate name, silly vanity category. 12.73.198.138 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- K33p. 3V3|2Y P4G3 N\ust B3 iN 4 C4T!!1!! --
C S
(Talk)
09:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- 7|-|15 15 4|\| 3|\|6|_15|-| VV1|<1. |}()|\|7 \/()73 1|\| 1337!!! BL kiss the lizard 23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No use if there's only one page in it, and no, every page does not need to be in a category because that would cause an even bigger overhaul of categories than we have now. O and dont vote in leet, this is an English Wiki -
«ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»
Talk |
Contrib's
16:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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 K1Bond007 19:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, doesn't seem like a bad category but it only has 2 people on it I.e. not enough for a full category. Vulturell 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Vulturell 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete on the basis that most cats in the form "ethnic group of Americans by profession" should be deleted. Overcategorisation. Valiantis 14:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, overcat. R adiant _>|< 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Overcategorization. siafu 18:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Too specific, only 2 people on it -
«ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»
Talk |
Contrib's
16:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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.