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.
These, and the children mentioned, are every page which start with "Category:Wikipedia:". Using a double namespace as the start is not a good idea, because it's confusing for people and for the software (allpages's namespace filter breaks on these). For the majority of them I've suggested just replacing the colon with a space; the last two I've stripped off the "Wikipedia:" bit as unnecesary. There was a previous CfD nomination (here), but it got very little traffic. The only sensible objection brought up then was compatibility with a 'planned' new namespace. I'd rather avoid current problems than possibly make things slightly easier if a future software change happens. SeventyThree(Talk) 00:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Note: I havn't put the tag on children of Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppetsorCategory:Wikipedia:Sock puppets, because there are so many and it didn't really seem worth it. SeventyThree(Talk) 00:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC) - I prefer the alternate proposal now (see below). SeventyThree(Talk)05:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. Definately broken. I checked on wikitech, and there are not plans for any new namespace. It would be fairly difficult, as the category namespace is currently hardcoded and there can be only one. Possibly the code could be generalized, but that would be a lot of effort, and there are too many other things on their plate. --William Allen Simpson05:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renametouser:Conscious & Mike Selinker's alternate. Looking at it, your choices are more sensible. I went for the minimum change to try and make it less controversial, given that the rename failed last time - but with the level of support here, it makes sense to reanme some of them further. SeventyThree(Talk)05:41, 17 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.
A very good category. It can be used to place any image that the user created. To join the catageory, place Category:Pokémon User Made Images on the image page. You will like the way the category looks when there is lots of members — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveminun (talk • contribs)
Delete Copyright is not limited to "official" images of things like this, all the various characters in the Pokémon "universe" is also copyrighted, so unfortunately drawing your own picture of a Pokémon character would still infringe on the rights of the creators of the series. IANAL naturaly, but I'm pretty sure that's the reason we are not flooded by cheap copies of pokemon comics and trading cards and what not, you simply can't make these things legaly without an explicit license from the creators of the thing. --Sherool(talk)17:59, 17 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Oppose. Moved from speedy (articles are not tagged--I'll leave that to Timwi if the nomination isn't withdrawn). Alternate's a fine adjective, and the one everyone uses in this context.--Mike Selinker14:14, 12 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 wasdelete. The categorisation structure, as stated by WP:CAT, should be mindful of NPOV; "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." The argument for deletion is in keeping with this notion, and the arguments for keeping the category offer little to counter this view, with one user asking it be kept because it exists in another category. I feel that point applies to the article Anti-hero rather than this category. The other point, that categories are more organised and easier to maintain is not essentially true, Lists can be said to be easier to maintain, exisiting as one article, such maintenance involving the editing of only one article, whereas a category requires the editing of many articles. Contentious information is better discussed in article space rather than category space, since categories allow no annotation, references or counter points. HidingTalk09:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this catagory for the same basic reason I nominated the list article of the same topic. Please see the AfD vote for that article. This catagory is basically the list in catagory form. CaveatLectorTalk21:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion - clearly better as a list. Who can determine which characters count as what? The lines between hero and anti-hero are blurred. At least a list has the possibility of referencing, and including debate in marginal cases. A category is a binary system - you're in or you're out - without the possibility of discussion or explanation. It is unsuitable in such a case. The reason the list was deleted was it was even felt that a list would be unsuitable for something so "fuzzy" around the edges. I can't see that we should keep the category, for which fuzziness is an even more critical problem. Maintenance is not the issue, it is scope and clarity, and this category fails that test. Incidentally, I would have voted "keep" to the list - if it comes up for undeletion, I would be happy to support. TheGrappler23:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fuzzy term, applied so often that any protagonist with any prominent flaws or negative characteristics (which is most of them) will be called an anti-hero at some point. A category (or, for that matter, a list) that covers characters ranging from Hamlet to Wolverine is too broad to be useful. -Sean Curtin04:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Real concept, but deciding who to apply it to is not so simple as to justify a category. The reasons for deleting the list apply with even greater force to the category. Postdlf21:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep It's under the catagory "stock characters," which qualifies it for encyclopedia material. Besides, it's interesting to read. I don't see why you want to delete it. Eirra23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC) eirra[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.
Strong keep: I think it is useful. We classify actual people by year of birth, so why not fictional people? In addition, we have categories to classify fictional characters by what U.S. state they live in (such as Category:Fictional Californians. If we can classify fictional characters by location, why not by birth? Q000:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the category could theoretically get very large if we included all fictional characters, but maybe in reality not many of them actually have articles. Arniep00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the categories get too big it can be possible to divide it further, such as fictional television characters born in the 1960s, fictional literature characters born in the 1960s, etc. Q001:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information not available, or only available via original research extrapolation, in many (most?) cases. Better to categorize characters by the time period in which their stories occurred. -Sean Curtin04:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has been my experience that with most fictional television characters, the decade of birth is well established. For example, the character Balki Bartokomous turned 25 in an episode that took place in 1989. This establishes his year of birth to be 1964. The character Quinn Mallory had a dream where he died and his grave read 1973-1996. This establishes his year of birth to be 1973. Marty McFly was 17 in 1985, which makes his year of birth either 1967 or 1968. Some of these cases require simple arithmetic to establish year of birth, but I don't think doing 1985-17=1968 should qualify as original research. Some of these cases like Marty McFly do not establish a specific year of birth because it could be one of two years. However, although the year of birth in Marty McFly's case is ambiguous, the decade of birth is not, which is why I categorized by decade of birth instead of year of birth. If the categories were by individual year of birth instead of decade, then I would agree that categorization would be too difficult and would agree to delete, but I think categorization by decade of birth can work very well. Q005:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not certain how useful the categories would proove. But you might want to add some of those births and methods of estimation to the Timeline of fictional historical events which already lists such events in chronological order. User:Dimadick
Comment: I don't see how the categories would be any less useful than categories of actual people by year of birth, such as Category:1962 birthsorCategory:1973 births, etc. The categories nominated for deletion are the same kind of thing but with fictional characters instead of real people. It can be interesting to have a category of fictional characters born around the same time. I could add the date of birth of some of the entries to Timeline of fictional historical events, but a problem is that with some births the exact year is ambiguous (even when the decade is not). It might look funny if I went to Timeline of fictional historical events (and similar articles like Timeline_of_fictional_contemporary_events) and listed something like "1967 or 1968: Marty McFly is born". To put fictional births into a list, I think it would work best to have a separate list of just births. Thanks for the link to Timeline of fictional historical events though. I'll look at that and similar lists. Q010:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I thought it was stupid and pointless at first glance but now I think it's useful, so I'm going to try and help save it. But if it gets deleted, I won't be too fussed... —Chantessy21:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In one episode, Quinn Mallory's year of birth is explicitly stated as being 1973. In one episode, Steve Urkel's year of birth is explicitly stated as being 1977. George McFly's birthdate is explicitly stated as April 1, 1938. Then there are other cases where the age and current year are explicitly stated, such as in Wade Welles, who is stated as being 23 in 1996. I don't think it should be considered original research to do a simple arithmetic computation like 1996-23=1973. Q003:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not original research. If we don't know a birthdate, we don't bother to add a fictional birth category. Simple as that. —Chantessy14:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly. In cases where the character's decade/year of birth or current age along with current year are never explicitly stated then we will simply not categorize that fictional character by a decade of birth. Then the categories by decade of birth will only be added to fictional characters where the decade of birth (or age with current year) is explicitly stated. Q015:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand how Wikipedia not being a fansite means that these categories should be deleted. Even though Wikipedia is not a fansite, Wikipedia still allows articles about fictional characters to be written, and does have categories that are specifically intended to be used for articles about fictional characters. Q001:41, 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 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 Jewish composers and songwriters category is almost completely redundant with the Jewish classical musicians category. Surfing through the pages, I found a good deal over half the composers listed in Jewish Composers and songwriters are already mentioned in Jewish classical musicians, filling up the subsequent articles with two very lengthy and unnecessary categories. I propose a merge between these two categories, and the removal of those songwriters who do not fit the criteria of "classical." If felt necessary, a Category:Jewish songwriters could be made for those removed, though a songwriter can just as easily fit in Category:Jewish musicians. If all Jewish composers are already listed in Jewish classical musicians, then this category can simply be deleted instead of merged. A final alternative could be to make a Category:Jewish composers for all Jewish composers, and keep Category:Jewish classical musicians for only performers...this can be discussed later though. Antidote18:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose many classical musicians are not composers or songwriters (although many songwriters and composers are known as musicians in their own right). Arniep20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose main option, support second option of splitting "composers and songwriters" - even widespread crossover does not imply redundancy if there is a reasonably drawn distinction in purpose of categories. The unusual "lumping" of songwriters and composers, however, has split these categories off from the category tree for composers and songwriters; this should be rectified. TheGrappler23:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The most popular option that will remove this inappropriate combination of composers and songwriters. Golfcam01:20, 15 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 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 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.
After much discussion it was agreed that the machine article should be Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis, the current category for games is Category:Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games and every emulator of the "Genesis" that I've tried has a Mega Drive option, even if sometimes only the 60 Hz Japanese Mega Drive rather than the 50 Hz Australian and European version. To name the category after the North American-only version of the console is to introduce a cultural bias into the English language wikipedia which, besides bordering on non-neutral point of view, isn't reflected by the entirety of the English speaking world. ThomasHarte16:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah. Bias. Anyways, all you really needed to say is "Move to match parent category X". I was just wondering shouldn't it be Sega Mega Drive/Genesis? It is quite unusual to state "Sega" twice in the title. Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I would pick Sega Mega Drive/Genesis if given free choice, but it took absolutely ages to find an acceptable title for the article describing the console and became such a big row (key points: "Genesis" in the largest segment of the first-language English world, "Mega Drive" in the largest segment of the first-or-second language English world, putting both in the title isn't very clean) that I've just accepted the thing. Given that that Category:Sega Genesis emulators was given that name last week, it seems that not everyone has. ThomasHarte18:29, 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 with expansion of vermeer, keep paintings as is pending a mass rename of paintings cats. Syrthiss12:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of the discussion about Category:Categories by person may be relevant here, as well as the naming convention that seems to have been adopted there. That category would be the root for any categories whose names include that of a person. Subcategories would probably drop the first name, unless there was potential for confusion. Carcharoth11:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I will say that for some people, it's a lot easier to remember the last (or first) name of a person than the full name. So there's no category:Madonna Ciccone, for example. I might have trouble remembering that Vermeer's first name was Johannes, but I won't have any trouble remembering his last name is Vermeer.--Mike Selinker17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recall having read somewhere in the Wikipedia: namespace that category names should follow the corresponding article. Can't remember exactly where, I'll look into it. AecisMr. Mojo risin'17:43, 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.
Since lists are either lists of things or lists of topics and lists of either type have been added lately to only the regular lists categories, I don't see the reason to have this category any longer. I've made sure that each of the lists in this category are also in the appropriate subject-based Lists category. JeffW14:45, 13 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.
This category incorrectly assumes that Unix web browsers only work on Linux, this is obviously wrong, since their dependancues rarely have anything to do with the kernel involved. These browsers work on Solaris, they work on FreeBSD and they work on some Linux distributions. Janizary14:13, 13 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.
Question What's the difference between a magazine and a journal? If journal is more inclusive perhaps all the magazine categories should be renamed. --JeffW19:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Seems to me that journals are more of a professional or cultural publication, while magazines are popular publications. I say keep them separate. --Zpb5222:14, 13 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 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 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.
That would probably be ok, but may, for example, prevent the inclusion of fictional disfigured extra-terrestials or animals. But maybe I'm thinking too far ahead ;-) Tim!11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, why not "characters"? I've amended the below and so:
Rename per nom. Quite right, quite right. BD2412T 13:32, 17 May 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.
Delete. More than half of the world's 6000 languages are tonal. There is no point in having this category, since it will become overpopulated, hence unusable, hence useless. It would be about the same as Category:Men and Category:Women, only without the subcategories (since there is no agreement among linguists on a sensible way to subcategorize tonal languages). Additionally, the boundary between tonal and non-tonal languages is not clear at all, so this would lead to endless deliberations and discussions about whether or not to include borderline cases. To give an example, I see that Limburgish has been placed in this category; however, that language is only marginally tonal and certainly not a prototypical tone language, so I'd argue for removing it from the category. I'm sure someone else would disagree with that, and there you go. Delete this unusable and unmaintainable category before more people discover it and think 'wait, wasn't Norwegian tonal?'. — mark✎06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've put the 'cfd' after seeing the discussion page, however I don't have strong views to either side. I admit, the category, as such is confusing, indeed with examples such as Norwegian. To a degree, any language is tonal. Anyways, if the category is to be deleted, I suggest a clear list would be made, Tone_(linguistics) and Tonal language are 'difficult' to navigate through the way they are currently. Oyd1122:04, 14 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Rename as nominated -- The parent category is "category:Baseball awards and trophies" not "MLB", and general policy is to expand abbreviations. The award is emphatically not named the MLB Rookie of the Year; there are two, one for American League and the other for National League. And the correct capitalization is Rookies and Year. --William Allen Simpson04:23, 14 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 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 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.
ie. people born on 29 February. These people have nothing meaningful in common as random coincidences are not encyclopedic. ReeseM03:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Strong delete All the other births by date categories were deleted and presumably this one only slipped through the net as it has an unusual title. Bhoeble06:27, 13 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 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 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 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 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 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.
21:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
