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 -- Kbdank71 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Star Wars Naberrie family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Most of the entries also in the Skywalker family, the category is unneccesary. Beardo 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Beardo. -- Storkk 13:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:46, 20 September 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 -- Kbdank71 15:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Star Wars Solo family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, All but one of the entries (an minor cousin) are also in the Skywalker family, the category is unneccesary. Beardo 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Beardo. -- Storkk 13:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 17:42, 21 September 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 -- Kbdank71 15:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

What's a "serious purpose" in this context? I don't follow this. Unlikely to conform to a neutral point of view, get rid of it. — freak( talk) 22:41, Sep. 15, 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, impossible to define "serious". -- Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, impossibly vague. The category is unlikely to be populated seriously. Pascal.Tesson 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or rename Category:Comedy projects in aid of charity and amend population. David Kernow ( talk) 07:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Comedy projects in aid of charity. -- Storkk 13:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Do not rename as there is no mechanism to ensure the population is amended (and the alternative name isn't that great an idea anyway). Golfcam 22:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:46, 20 September 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Moslem universities and colleges to Category:Islamic universities and colleges

• Rename - "moslem" is a spelling seldom used in contemporary writing, so should be dropped. But "Islamic" is better here anyway, because that's the term usually used for non-people; several of the category's contents are along the lines of "Islamic University of Somewhere". CDC (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Add includion criterions to avoid every single university in muslim world being listed here. Pavel Vozenilek 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

That shouldn't be necessary. If an Islamic University is non-notable it shouldn't even have an article.-- T. Anthony 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

What I mean is someone eager to put every university in Egypt into the category, for example. Pavel Vozenilek 18:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, and per Pavel, this could become very large if not scoped. Other than a few colonial-era secular universities I believe that nearly all Islamic-world universities would qualify. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 07:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Williamborg ( Bill) 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:46, 20 September 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Leeds City F.C. managers to Category:Leeds City FC managers

• Move to Category:Leeds City FC managers as the Leeds City article has changed from Leeds City F.C. to Leeds City FC.

Kingjamie 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Move should be uncontroversial. Actually, isn't this a case of speedy per naming conventions? Pascal.Tesson 00:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:46, 20 September 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/merge to Category:People from Volusia County, Florida -- Kbdank71 16:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:People from Deltona, Florida into Category:People from Florida

• Merge, not very many notable people from Deltona, Florida. The only other people (besides the article that's already in there) I can think of is those people who were murdered for their XBox earlier this year. Almost no room for growth so this is better off merged into People from Florida, IMO. Recury 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge, my bare-minimum rule of thumb is 5 or 6 elements, and 10 is better. One, however, has no purpose. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge, on a ten year horizon, we can't seriously expect that to ever grow past a dozen elements. Pascal.Tesson 00:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment: I created this category, along with a few hundred others some months ago, to reduce the size of the various "People from (state)" categories. One was made for each metropolitan statistical area in the country. I intentionally underpopulated each one so that they would be easier to change if such were wanted. I also notified every state project about the existence of these categories, asking them to fill them out. Some did, evidently others did not. I have just finished adding several names to this category. There are several cities in the metropolitan area I haven't gone through yet, as well as the county itself, and I think it currently stands at 60 elements. I hope it is enough. Badbilltucker 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

An admirable idea, but I don't really see how putting people from, say, Daytona Beach in a category called Category:People from Deltona, Florida is anything but confusing. Deltona is a very populous city these days, but it is not what you would call very influential in the area (as the article on Deltona points out, it is mostly notable for being a bedroom community for Orlando). I'm sure it works much more naturally with metropolitan areas where the major city is obvious, but in this case I think a merge would be better. Recury 23:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

In answer to Recury, it was only after seeing that all the other similar pages, including in particular Category: People from Birmingham, Alabama, included people from the surrounding metropolitan area, that I chose to follow what seemed to be the existing pattern, naming the category after the first-named major city in the name of the metropolitan area. I note that some have been retitled "People from the (x) area" and similar, and would have no objection to retitling them in that way. In fact, in the original communications with the various state projects, I specifically mentioned the possibility of retitling them. It seems that no one saw fit to do so. If you think it would be less confusing to change the name to "People from the Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach metropolitan area," or "...metropolitan statistical area", or "...Volusia County, Florida", in which the entire MSA is contained, that would clearly be unobjectionable. However, I think that, given the size of the state of Florida, it is all but required that the "People from Florida" category be broken up where reasonably possible. Texas recently had over 1500 names in the "People from Texas" category, and as a result a vanity user page which was included in the category went uncommented-upon for three years. Florida will rather quickly grow to the same size if subcats like this are not in place. Regarding the fact that Deltona is a bedroom community, I don't know. All I know is the county is counted as its own metropolitan statistical area by the federal government in their latest release on the subject. If someone were to want to merge it into the metropolitan Orlando grouping, that would be unobjectionable as well. Badbilltucker 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge, with comment. I propose a merger either with Category:People from the Orlando metropolitan area or Category:People from Volusia County, Florida. Personally, since Volusia County is an MSA by itself, I prefer Volusia County.— Dale Arnett 12:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/Retitle - Category:People from Volusia County, Florida sounds good to me. I'd change the title myself if I didn't think that might run contrary to the rules of this discussion. Badbilltucker 13:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• I don't have any objections to a rename to Category:People from Volusia County, Florida. Recury 19:20, 20 September 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Anglo-Irish to Category:Anglo-Irish people

• Rename, Apart from the introductory article this category is entirely populated with articles about people. Wikipedia policy is that categories like this should have plural names, but "Anglo-Irishes" is incorrect, so the name should be Category:Anglo-Irish people. This name will also remove doubt about the contents of the category, that is it does not cover non-biographical aspects of Anglo-Irish history and culture. Edton 12:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 07:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Williamborg ( Bill) 21:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Golfcam 22:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:46, 20 September 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, empty -- Kbdank71 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Israeli Defence Force ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete this duplicate category. There already exists the very thorough Category:Israel Defense Forces. IZAK 11:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. And for those who wonder, Israel Defense Forces is the correct spelling. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete & recat articles per nom. Williamborg ( Bill) 21:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:46, 20 September 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Monarchies to Category:Current monarchies

• Rename, as it isn't self-evident to me that this is restricted to current monarchies, as stated in the blurb. It needs some tidying up (note that while as of right now there are 46 subcategories they aren't for the 46 separate monarchies that there are said to be). Brammen 09:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Insignificant facet of political structure for majority of listed countries. List of current monarchies is way to go here. Pavel Vozenilek 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • See my comment below, which demonstrates that that is a non-issue. The separate categories for monarchies (not the country categories) need a place to go. Golfcam 22:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. This is a useful container cat for several existing cats (which have inconsistent naming but oh well). It should not be a categorization for countries per se, although it has been used that way. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - needs some readjusting with regard to subcategories, but would be need to stay as a supercategory to current and former monarchies. Tim! 07:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • But it is not a supercategory so it cannot "stay" as such. Golfcam 22:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Maybe I should say it should become the supercategory for current and former monarchies. I agree that national categories and articles should be removed which I think is what you are suggesting. Tim! 17:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. As the nom said, it needs tidying up. It contains a mixture of country categories and monarchy categories. The national categories should be taken out. Golfcam 22:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 01:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:46, 20 September 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Usage of "Bruneian" seems to be established, with many hits relative to the size of the country, a good number of which were apparently written by locals:

• Category:Brunei people to Category:Bruneian people
• Category:Brunei sportspeople to Category:Bruneian sportspeople
• Category:Brunei media to Category:Bruneian media
• Rename all as nom. Brammen 09:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all, as the CIA fact file also lists "Bruneian" as the correct word for the people of Brunei. Picaroon9288 02:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per above. -- Storkk 13:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:46, 20 September 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Cities in Brunei to Category:Cities and towns in Brunei

• Rename, to match the categories for ohter countries which only have one class of urban settlement. Brammen 09:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 07:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:46, 20 September 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 -- Kbdank71 15:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Star Wars Lars family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Unneccesary category, only two entries, one of which is a compendium page anyway. Beardo 07:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcategorization. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete not needed. Pascal.Tesson 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per fancruft. — Dale Arnett 12:46, 20 September 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.