Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
Purge the cache to refresh this page
See How to use this page for the official rules of this page, guidelines for Speedy Deletion and Speedy Renaming, and how to do cleanup. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for the policies guiding many renaming decisions.
Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category fewer.
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
How to nominate a category for discussion
Nomination procedure
Twinkle
You may use Twinkle to facilitate CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check "Twinkle" in the "Browsing" section. Use the now-installed "XfD" (Start a deletion discussion) tab while viewing the page you want to nominate.
Twinkle only allows you to nominate a single category or stub template. For bundled nominations including multiple categories, see § MassCFD.
MassCFD
You can use the script User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD to automatically make mass nominations.
Manual nominations
I | Preliminary steps.
Before nominating a category:
In the following special cases:
For further information, see Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. |
II | Edit the category.
Add one of the following templates at the beginning of the category page (not the talk page) of every category to be discussed. For nominations involving large numbers of categories, help adding these templates can be requested here.
|
III | Create the CFD section.
Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries. Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) to copy and paste one of the templates below. When inserting category names into these template's parameters, except the
|
Stub types
I | Preliminary steps.
In general, a stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category. Before nominating a stub type for deletion, merging or renaming:
|
II | Edit the template.
Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the template to be discussed.
|
III | Create the CFD section.
Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries. Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) and paste the following text (remember to update the default parameters):
|
Notifying interested projects and editors
In addition to the steps listed above, you may choose to invite participation by editors who are likely to be informed about a nominated category. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing. In addition, to help make your messages about the CfD discussion clear, avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations, link to relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the discussion itself.
- Notifying related WikiProjects
WikiProjects consist of groups of editors who are interested in a particular subject. If a nominated category is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, consider adding a brief, neutral note on their talk page(s) about the nomination. You may use {{subst:cfd notice|Category name|2025 May 27|CfD section name}} ~~~~
or write a personalized message.
Tagging the nominated category's talk page with a relevant WikiProject's banner will include the category in that WikiProject's Article Alerts if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a nominated category with {{WikiProject Physics}} will add the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.
- Notifying substantial contributors to the category
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and main contributors of the category that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, check the category's page history or talk page. You may use {{Cfd notice}}
to inform the category's creator and all other editors.
- Notifying other interested editors
It may be helpful to invite other subject-matter experts by posting a message on the talk page of the most closely related article, such as Protein family for Category:Protein families. You may use {{Cfdnotice}}
for this.
Redirecting categories
It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and classification.
However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over again. In these cases, we use a form of "soft" redirection.
Categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (#REDIRECT [[target]]) due to limitations in the MediaWiki software. Instead, just use Template:Categoryredirect. The NekoDaemon (talk · contribs) bot hourly automatically patrols these categories and moves articles out of them and into the redirect targets.
You can see a list of redirected categories in Category:Wikipedia category redirects.
Special notes
Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidentally not be listed here.
See also meta-discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases regarding the content of the {{cfd}} template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.
Anonymous users may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in AfD. Votes from anonymous or new users may be discounted if they lack edit history. See Wikipedia:Suffrage and WP:SOCK for details.
Categories relating to stub articles should not be nominated here, but should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.
When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use {{cfd-article}} for this.
Speedy renaming and merging
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. |
Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested only if they meet a speedy criterion, for example WP:C2D (consistency with main article's name) or WP:C2C (consistency with established category tree names). Please see instructions below.
- Determine which speedy criterion applies
- Tag category page with
{{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
or{{subst:cfm-speedy|Merge target}}
- List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page
Please note that a speedy request must state which of the narrowly defined criteria strictly applies. Hence, any other non-speedy criteria, even "common sense" or "obvious", may be suitable points, but only at a full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion.
Requests may take 48 hours to process after listing if there are no objections. This delay allows other users to review the request to ensure that it meets the speedy criteria for speedy renaming or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.
Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g., "patent nonsense", "recreation") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}
with no required delay. Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with {{db-empty}}. Renaming under C2E may also be processed instantly (at the discretion of an administrator) as it is a variation on G7.
To oppose a speedy request you must record your objection within 48 hours of the nomination. Do this by inserting immediately under the nomination:
- Oppose, (the reasons for your objection). ~~~~
You will not be able to do this by editing the page WP:Categories for discussion. Instead, you should edit the section WP:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here or the page WP:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here (WP:CFDS). Be aware that in the course of any discussion, the nomination and its discussion may get moved further down the page purely for organizational convenience – you may need to search WP:CFDS to find the new location. Participate in any ongoing discussion, but unless you withdraw your opposition, a knowledgeable person may eventually bring forward the nomination and discussion to become a regular CFD discussion. At that stage you may add further comments, but your initial opposition will still be considered. However, if after seven days there has been no support for the request, and no response from the nominator, the request may be dropped from further consideration as a speedy.
Contested speedy requests become stale, and can be untagged and delisted after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}
. If the nominator wants to revive the process, this may be requested at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.
If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process the Speedy page. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a full CFD discussion.
Speedy criteria
The category-specific criteria for speedy renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:
C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes
- Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
- Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
- Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category.
C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices
- Expanding abbreviated country names (e.g. U.S. → United States).
- Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name (e.g. Category:Washington → Category:Washington (state) or Category:Washington, D.C.).
C2C: Consistency with established category tree names
Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names
- This should be used only where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
- This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
- This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).
C2D: Consistency with main article's name
- Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous page (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
- This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is:
- unambiguous (so it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator); and
- uncontroversial, either because of longstanding stability at that particular name, or because the page was just moved (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). C2D does not apply if the result would be contrary to guidelines at WP:CATNAME, or there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result, or it is controversial in some other way.
- This criterion may also be used to rename a set category in the same circumstances, where the set is defined by a renamed topic; e.g. players for a sports team, or places in a district.
- Before nominating a category to be renamed per WP:C2D, consider whether it makes more sense to move the article instead of the category.
C2E: Author request
- This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months of creating the category.
- The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.
C2F: One eponymous page
- This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article, list, template or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories, where applicable. Nominations should use
{{subst:cfm-speedy}}
(speedy merger) linking to a suitable parent category, or to another appropriate category (e.g. one that is currently on the article). When listing the nomination at WP:CFDS, you must manually add all the appropriate parent categories as targets if the member page is not already in them.
Admin instructions
When handling the listings:
- Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
- With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
- Make sure that there is no opposition to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing their opposition.
If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed or merged – follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is to Rename, Merge, or Delete"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.
Applying speedy criteria in full discussions
- A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
- The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here, and
- No objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
- If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.
Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here
If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.
If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.
Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:
* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use:
* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use:
* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 21:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC). Currently, there are 137 open requests (refresh).
Administrators and page movers: Do not use the "Move" tab to move categories listed here!Categories are processed following the 48-hour waiting period and are moved by a bot. |
Current requests
Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).
- Category:Labour Co-operative Mayors and Deputy Mayors of London to Category:Labour Co-operative mayors and deputy mayors of London – C2A. Woko Sapien (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Taiwanese Presidents of the Legislative Yuan to Category:Taiwanese presidents of the Legislative Yuan – C2A, lowercase "p" better aligns with sister categories (e.g. Category:Taiwanese presidents of the Judicial Yuan) as well. Woko Sapien (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Ministers for nordic cooperation of Sweden to Category:Ministers for Nordic cooperation of Sweden – C2D: Nordic countries. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Ice hockey coaches by club to Category:Ice hockey coaches by team – C2C: Category:Ice hockey teams. "Clubs" not used in ice hockey category space. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Vikingarna riders to Category:Vikingarna (speedway) riders – C2D: Vikingarna (speedway). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Hulagu Khan to Category:Hulegu Khan – C2D: Per main article title and dominant spelling in modern English sources. User:Shadow. 547 (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2025 (GMT)
- Category:Syrian Women diplomats to Category:Women diplomats for Syria – C2C: other Category:Women diplomats by country of origin. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2024 Summer Paralympics sports navigational boxes to Category:2024 Summer Paralympics sports sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2020 Summer Paralympics sports navigational boxes to Category:2020 Summer Paralympics sports sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2016 Summer Paralympics sports navigational boxes to Category:2016 Summer Paralympics sports sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2012 Summer Paralympics sports navigational boxes to Category:2012 Summer Paralympics sports sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2004 Summer Paralympics sports navigational boxes to Category:2004 Summer Paralympics sports sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2000 Summer Paralympics sports navigational boxes to Category:2000 Summer Paralympics sports sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists of a singular sidebar template. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:1996 Summer Paralympics sports navigational boxes to Category:1996 Summer Paralympics sports sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists of a singular sidebar template. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:1992 Summer Paralympics sports navigational boxes to Category:1992 Summer Paralympics sports sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists of one sidebar template. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2016 South Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:2016 South Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2019 South Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:2019 South Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists of a singular sidebar template. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:1954 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:1954 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists of a singular sidebar template. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:1958 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:1958 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:1966 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:1966 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists of a singular sidebar template. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:1962 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:1962 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:1982 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:1982 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2022 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:2022 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2018 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:2018 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2014 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:2014 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2002 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:2002 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:1998 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:1998 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:1994 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:1994 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:1990 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:1990 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:1986 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:1986 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2006 Asian Games event navigational boxes to Category:2006 Asian Games event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2008 Summer Paralympics sports navigational boxes to Category:2008 Summer Paralympics sports sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists only of sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic. —andrybak (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2018 Winter Paralympics event navigational boxes to Category:2018 Winter Paralympics event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists of four sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates by topic and Category:Winter Paralympics sidebar templates. —andrybak (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2022 Winter Paralympics event navigational boxes to Category:2022 Winter Paralympics event sidebar templates – C2C: the category consists of four sidebar templates. Rename for consistency with Category:Sidebar templates. —andrybak (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Academic staff of the Technical University of Braunschweig to Category:Academic staff of TU Braunschweig – C2D. SFBB (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Technical University of Braunschweig alumni to Category:TU Braunschweig alumni – C2D. SFBB (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Diplomats of the Swedish Empire to Category:Diplomats from the Swedish Empire – C2C: Category:People from the Swedish Empire. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Austro-Hungarian diplomats of World War I to Category:Diplomats of World War I from Austria-Hungary – C2C: Category:People of World War I from Austria-Hungary. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Diplomats of the United States in the Caribbean to Category:Diplomats for the United States in the Caribbean – C2C: Category:Diplomats for the United States. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:American diplomats by role to Category:Diplomats for the United States by role – C2C: Category:Diplomats for the United States. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Defunct companies of Kingston upon Hull to Category:Defunct companies based in Kingston upon Hull – C2C, Category:Companies based in Kingston upon Hull. Inpops (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Members of the Landtag of Liechtenstein stubs to Category:Member of the Landtag of Liechtenstein stubs – C2E TheBritinator (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Female members of the Landtag of Liechtenstein to Category:Women members of the Landtag of Liechtenstein – C2E TheBritinator (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have only tagged the category now. Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- My edit did not seem to go through for whatever reason. Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have only tagged the category now. Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Institutes of Russian Ministry of Defense to Category:Institutes of the Ministry of Defence (Russia) – C2D. Russian Rocky (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Working Week albums to Category:Working Week (band) albums – C2D: per Working Week (band). 1857a (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Dinosaur (jazz quartet) albums to Category:Dinosaur (band) albums – C2D: per Dinosaur (band). 1857a (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:2023 Hamas attack on Israel to Category:October 7 attacks – C2D per October 7 attacks, page moved after consensus. CoconutOctopus talk 13:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:The Dicks albums to Category:Dicks (band) albums – C2D: per Dicks (band). 1857a (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Greek articles without infoboxes to Category:Greece articles needing infoboxes – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. Also, Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:B-Class Greek articles needing review to Category:B-Class Greece articles needing review – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Greek articles needing attention to Category:Greece articles needing attention – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Greek articles by topic to Category:Greece articles by topic – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Automatically assessed Greek articles to Category:Automatically assessed Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Unassessed Greek articles to Category:Unassessed Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Template-Class Greek pages to Category:Template-Class Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Stub-Class Greek articles to Category:Stub-Class Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Start-Class Greek articles to Category:Start-Class Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Redirect-Class Greek pages to Category:Redirect-Class Greece pages – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:NA-Class Greek pages to Category:NA-Class Greece pages – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:List-Class Greek articles to Category:List-Class Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:GA-Class Greek articles to Category:GA-Class Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:FL-Class Greek articles to Category:FL-Class Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:File-Class Greek pages to Category:File-Class Greece pages – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:FA-Class Greek articles to Category:FA-Class Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Draft-Class Greek pages to Category:Draft-Class Greece pages – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Disambig-Class Greek pages to Category:Disambig-Class Greece pages – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Category-Class Greek pages to Category:Category-Class Greece pages – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:C-Class Greek articles to Category:C-Class Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:B-Class Greek articles to Category:B-Class Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:A-Class Greek articles to Category:A-Class Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Greek articles by quality to Category:Greece articles by quality – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Unknown-importance Greek articles to Category:Unknown-importance Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Top-importance Greek articles to Category:Top-importance Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:NA-importance Greek pages to Category:NA-importance Greece pages – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Mid-importance Greek articles to Category:Mid-importance Greece articles – C2C: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Low-importance Greek articles to Category:Low-importance Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:High-importance Greek articles to Category:High-importance Greece articles – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Greek articles by importance to Category:Greece articles by importance – C2A: and/or C2C Category:WikiProject Greece articles, see also other subtrees of Category:Articles by WikiProject. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Television articles without infoboxes to Category:Television articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Swimming articles without infoboxes to Category:Swimming articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Song articles without infoboxes to Category:Song articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Ship articles without infoboxes to Category:Ship articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:School articles without infoboxes to Category:School articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Russia articles without infoboxes to Category:Russia articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Record Labels articles without infoboxes to Category:Record Labels articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Mountain articles without infoboxes to Category:Mountain articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Law enforcement articles without infoboxes to Category:Law enforcement articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:India articles without infoboxes to Category:India articles needing infoboxes – C2A: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Germany articles without infoboxes to Category:Germany articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:France articles without infoboxes to Category:France articles needing infoboxes – C2A: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Cultivar articles without infoboxes to Category:Cultivar articles needing infoboxes – C2A: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Computing articles without infoboxes to Category:Computing articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Christianity articles without infoboxes to Category:Christianity articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:China articles without infoboxes to Category:China articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Caribbean articles without infoboxes to Category:Caribbean articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Transportation in Brazil articles without infoboxes to Category:Transportation in Brazil articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Sports in Brazil articles without infoboxes to Category:Sports in Brazil articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:History of Brazil articles without infoboxes to Category:History of Brazil articles needing infoboxes – C2A: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Government and laws of Brazil articles without infoboxes to Category:Government and laws of Brazil articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Geography of Brazil articles without infoboxes to Category:Geography of Brazil articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Education and science in Brazil articles without infoboxes to Category:Education and science in Brazil articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Arts in Brazil articles without infoboxes to Category:Arts in Brazil articles needing infoboxes – C2A: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Brazil articles without infoboxes to Category:Brazil articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Novel articles without infoboxes to Category:Novel articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Book articles without infoboxes to Category:Book articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Biography articles without infoboxes to Category:Biography articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Azerbaijan articles without infoboxes to Category:Azerbaijan articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles without infoboxes to Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Africa articles without infoboxes to Category:Africa articles needing infoboxes – C2C: See Category:Wikipedia infobox backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Transgender Nazi concentration camp survivors to Category:Transgender concentration camp survivors – C2C: parent is LGBTQ concentration camp survivors SMasonGarrison 02:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smasongarrison: shouldn't the parent category be renamed instead? The grandparent category is Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Swiss Promotion League seasons to Category:Promotion League seasons – C2D following move discussion Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Swiss Women's Super League to Category:Women's Super League (Switzerland) – C2D following move discussion Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Swiss Women's Super League seasons to Category:Women's Super League (Switzerland) seasons – C2D following move discussion Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Swiss Women's Super League players to Category:Women's Super League (Switzerland) players – C2D following move discussion Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Albums produced by Randy Burns to Category:Albums produced by Randy Burns (music producer) – C2B: To be clear that Randy Burns (singer) did not produce these albums, athough C2D can apply here, too. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level to Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user group – C2D: Per Wikipedia talk:User groups#Requested move 7 May 2025. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed requests
- Category:Neolithic Macedonia (region) to Category:Neolithic Macedonia (Greece) – C2C: This category covers only Greek Macedonia scope and is thus inappropriately named; needs to fall under the same naming theme as Category:Macedonia (Greece). Deiadameian (talk) 5:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Why so? Adam of Macedonia can be added to the category under its current name. This needs to be moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam of Macedonia is in Category:Prehistory of North Macedonia. I've noticed both categories I listed are further categorized with Greece-specific subcats, and started off as such (before older renaming). But they cannot have a wide-scope name and a smaller-scope content. If they are functionally Greece-specific categories (and that's what they are) their name needs to reflect that. Deiadameian (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, the choice is between current name and broader content or narrower name and current content. So it cannot be speedied. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Neolithic settlements in Macedonia (region) to Category:Neolithic settlements in Macedonia (Greece) – C2C: As above. Deiadameian (talk) 5:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- Category:8 mm firearms to Category:8mm firearms – C2A: As per naming scheme used in Category:Firearms by caliber Gjs238 (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Don't think that the category naming scheme is actually consistent and the relevant article is 8 mm caliber. Jahaza (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:7.92 mm firearms to Category:7.92mm firearms – C2A: As per naming scheme used in Category:Firearms by caliber Gjs238 (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:12.7 mm firearms to Category:12.7mm firearms – C2A: As per naming scheme used in Category:Firearms by caliber Gjs238 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:7.62 mm firearms to Category:7.62mm firearms – C2A: As per naming scheme used in Category:Firearms by caliber Gjs238 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I don't think Category:Firearms by caliber actually has a consensus naming scheme. And the eponymous article here is 7.62 mm caliber. Jahaza (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:5.56 mm firearms to Category:5.56mm firearms – C2A: As per naming scheme used in Category:Firearms by caliber Gjs238 (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:5.45 mm firearms to Category:5.45mm firearms – C2A: As per naming scheme used in Category:Firearms by caliber Gjs238 (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:5.8 mm firearms to Category:5.8mm firearms – C2A: As per naming scheme used in Category:Firearms by caliber Gjs238 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gjs238: I assume you mean Category:5.8mm firearms as a target. Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, just fixed that typo. Thanks. Gjs238 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gjs238: feel free to take this to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, just fixed that typo. Thanks. Gjs238 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gjs238: I assume you mean Category:5.8mm firearms as a target. Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On hold pending other discussion
- Category:Dramatiska Institutet alumni to Category:Swedish Institute of Dramatic Art alumni – C2D: Swedish Institute of Dramatic Art Kaffet i halsen (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kaffet i halsen:, I think Dramatiska Institutet is probably the common name, see Talk:Swedish Institute of Dramatic Art#Article name. TSventon (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's hold this the article name is decided. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon and Kaffet i halsen: you probably need to start a formal RM. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's hold this the article name is decided. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kaffet i halsen:, I think Dramatiska Institutet is probably the common name, see Talk:Swedish Institute of Dramatic Art#Article name. TSventon (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to full discussion
- Category:Public Research Organisations in New Zealand to Category:Public Research Organisations – C2D: 1) Match article name Public Research Organisation 2) Remove unnecessary disambiguator. Public Research Organisation is a type of New Zealand research organisation. Gjs238 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced that a disambiguator is unnecessary. However a different form of disambiguation, namely Category:Public Research Organisations (New Zealand), would bring it more in line with the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it would be better to delete the category and merge to Category:Research institutes in New Zealand. If the category is kept, it will at most contain 4 articles plus 1 eponymous one, only 2 of which currently exist. Gjs238 (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging would be fine with me, but that is not for speedy either. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Places in mythology to Category:Locations in mythology – C2C: the subcategories are all called "locations". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the parents though are called "Places" and in fact so is one of the subcategories and some of the grandchild categories under Hindu mythology. Jahaza (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Telenovelas about spiritism to Category:Telenovelas about Spiritism – C2C within Category:Spiritism – Fayenatic London 09:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Category:Spiritism is only capitalized because it's the beginning of the category name. The name "spiritism" itself is not proper. See the name of the article Kardecist spiritism for example. Jahaza (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fayenatic london and Jahaza: shouldn't it become Category:Kardecist spiritism as a matter of C2D? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is opposed, a full discussion is needed along with Category:Spiritism and Category:Films about Spiritism. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_17#Category:Spiritism. – Fayenatic London 13:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fayenatic london and Jahaza: shouldn't it become Category:Kardecist spiritism as a matter of C2D? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Category:Spiritism is only capitalized because it's the beginning of the category name. The name "spiritism" itself is not proper. See the name of the article Kardecist spiritism for example. Jahaza (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for deletion
Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.
Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.
Discussions
April 12
- 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 - TexasAndroid 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category that replaced it, Category:Old Kingdom series is more appropriately named, and all entries have been moved there. I just need an admin to delete the old one. Nihiltres 00:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the new one seems horribly ambiguous. Perhaps both should be deleted in favour of Category:Old Kingdom series (Garth Nix) ? 132.205.44.134 00:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 132.205.44.134, do you know of any other "Old Kingdom" other than the one by Garth Nix? The Ninth Bright Shiner (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider that Old Kingdom is a term used in Egyptology, and that many works of fiction refer to Old Kingdom in relation to New Kingdom or Republic etc, when dealing with a realm in that transitioned, without reference to external realms, it's common enough. I would similarly commont on Old Republic as being ambiguous if you proposed it for Star Wars. 132.205.44.134 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that, I maintain that Category:Old Kingdom series is an appropriate name: it might not be were one to omit the word "series", which in my opinion should make it specific enough. If it turns out to be too ambiguous nonetheless, I will be just as happy to move it to another, less ambiguous title. Nihiltres 04:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No articles in catagory. The Republican 00:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Calvin Klein models and Category:Versace models created instead.
- Speedy delete both per nom. Bhoeble 17:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete both per nom. David Kernow 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and no longer needed, since the corresponding template has been redirected. -- Beland 23:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 17:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Beland. -- Kjkolb 14:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep - TexasAndroid 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicated cat., only populated with one article. Ziggurat 21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OPPOSE it is not a duplicate category. astronomy events are for events having to do with astronomy, as a thing. astronomical events are for events that astronomy studies. Astronomy Day would be totally inappropriate as an astronomical event, since no astronomer would study it (though a sociologist might), and it doesn't even take place in outer space. Zzzzzzzzzzz 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Zzzzzzzzzzz Bhoeble 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above; perhaps a brief one-liner needs to appear in each category to ensure difference between them clear. David Kernow 15:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pluralisation, possible merge with Courtoom sketch artists if anyone can think of a sensible title. Tim! 19:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename Bhoeble 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename per Bhoeble; re possible merge, I'd say "Forensic artists" and "Courtroom sketch artists" identify different activities. David Kernow 15:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalisation and pluralisation. Tim! 19:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename Bhoeble 17:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename per Bhoeble. David Kernow 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct legal terminology — see Litigant in person. Tim! 19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename with some reluctance. Everyday English is generally to be preferred but the legal term isn't too obscure. Bhoeble 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sezione di Roma
- 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 - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't cover by the previous standardisation of the subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions by city as it was not in that category before I found it. Rename CalJW 00:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one needs amendment for capitalisation and I would like to see it brought into conformity with most other modern city street categories. The reason for the mention of roads is that it contained a subcategory for Ancient Roman roads, but I think it is more appropriate to make that a "see also" link as few or none of the roads in question were actually in Rome and I have done that. Rename CalJW 23:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent Category:Piazzas of Italy. CalJW 19:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures and on second thoughts (see below) I prefer a merge here. The churches and chapel categories are both in category:Places of worship in Rome alongside a synagogue and I expect someone will write an article about a mosque in Rome one day. ("A mosque in Rome", now that's a thought!) CalJW 18:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge per revised nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 18:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures. Rename. CalJW 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Is there a reason to keep this and Category:Churches and chapels in Rome? Vegaswikian 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an awkward case. Most other places just have a churches category. Maybe the two articles about chapels should be merged into articles about churches. On the other hand there is a parent category for chapels, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea. For now I will amend the nomination above to the more common form, put both in Category:Places of worship in Rome and cross reference them, but I'm open to suggestions. CalJW 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "cemeteries" should be mentioned first. Cemetery categories are more common and the parent category is category:Cemeteries in Italy. Rename Cemeteries and tombs in Rome CalJW 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Fountains of Rome to Category:Fountains in Rome;
Category:Villas of Rome to Category:Villas in Rome;
Category:Amphitheatres of Rome to Category:Amphitheatres in Rome
- 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 - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures. Rename. CalJW 18:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A superfluous intermediate click. It is empty apart from two sub-categories which are both in category:Buildings and structures in Rome and it is incorrectly formatted.Delete CalJW 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge Category:Palaces (ancient and modern) of Rome with Category:Palaces in Rome;
Rename Category:Bridges (ancient and modern) in Rome to Category:Bridges in Rome
- 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 - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parentheses aren't in line with standard practice and are redundant.
Palaces: There is a subcategory for ancient Roman palaces in Rome. Category:Palaces in Rome already exists, so merge.
Bridges: If someone thinks it is relevant to create a subcategory for Ancient Roman bridges in Rome that would be fine, but the top category should just be "Bridges" as for any other city. Rename. CalJW 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge Palaces, rename Bridges per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Palaces, rename Bridges per nom. Bhoeble 18:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Palaces, rename Bridges per nom. David Kernow 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures. Rename. CalJW 18:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. How about a Category:Tiny columns in Rome too? David Kernow 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clearer name, confirming that the category includes a wide range of buildings. Rename CalJW 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename
per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- It might be a little better if we used Ancient only once in the category name :) - EurekaLott 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. The duplication was obviously a typo and was not present on the category page. Bhoeble 18:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Grazie per la visita!
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge - TexasAndroid 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:John Peel. Category offers no organisational benefits (it belongs to no category other than Category:John Peel) and in navigational terms presents an extra level with no benefits. Contains just 2 subcats. Per discussion at Category talk:Artists who recorded Peel Sessions. kingboyk 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, per nom. Flowerparty? 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 18:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More succinct name. Per discussion at Category talk:Artists who recorded Peel Sessions. kingboyk 18:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, per nom. Still can't work out if 'Peel Session artists' sounds better or not, though (without the double plural). Flowerparty? 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't we avoid refering to musicians as 'artists' in category names?(See Cat:Artists as opposed to Cat:Musicians; I can't find more specific discussion regarding this, though.) Or, since this is apparently not going to be a subcategory of Cat:Musicians but only Cat:John Peel, will that not be considered an ambiguity in this case? –Unint 00:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Hmm, completely forgot Cat:Albums by artist. I guess it's the best word for the situation. –Unint 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename agreed - doesn't really matter if the artist had the recording, recorded, broadcast, released on vinyl (a small number) or if the session was recorded and broadcast (many, many more). On another matter, the use of 'artist' is appropriate, as whilst most were musical, some where poetry and spoken word performances Steve-Ho 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename and delete as per David Kernow. - TexasAndroid 17:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We have two categories which only vary in spelling. The hyphenated form is correct. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, should it be Category:One-day International cricket, with a capital "I", or even, perhaps, Category:One-day Internationals? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're right. The article is called One-day International, so we should use that capitalisation. So we should do a combined merge and rename of the two categories into one new category. As for which name to choose, I think I have a slight preference for Category:One-day International cricket over Category:One-day Internationals, but I don't really care much. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per modified nom to Category:One-day International cricket David Kernow 16:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:One day international cricket (currently empty) and
- Rename Category:One-day international cricket → Category:One-day International cricket per above. David Kernow 15:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:One day international cricket (currently empty) and rename Category:One-day international cricket → Category:One-day International cricket -- I@n ≡ talk 15:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
White hip hop musicians, rappers, and groups
- 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 and delete as proposed. - TexasAndroid 17:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the unpopulated Category:White hip hop musicians (which I created)
- Merge Category:White hip hop groups (which I created) into Category:Hip hop groups
- Merge Category:White rappers into Category:Rappers
At first I was hesitant to put these categories up to CFD. But then I noticed-- their very existence is biased against a worldview. If you actually think about it, a huge percent of rappers are white-- perhaps even most of them The existence of these categories is biased towards the issues of identity within America-- because this is an English encyclopedia, we forget that hip hop is a worldwide movement-- there are hip hop scenes in every european country.--Urthogie 15:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, very nicely argued proposal too. --kingboyk 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. David Kernow 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Correct category is Category:Tasmania cricketers. I've already recategorised the one article that was in the erroneous category. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhoeble (talk • contribs)
- Delete as category seems to be used as a list. (Why "Tasmania cricketers" (noun + noun) rather than "Tasmanian cricketers" (adjective + noun), though?) David Kernow 15:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they played for Tasmania, rather than being Tasmanians themselves. (Also it agrees with the sibling categories). Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, understood. Suggest, however, these types of categories named differently, as I imagine there'd be others who'd misunderstand the intention of this "[Country (noun)] cricketers" format. Regards, David Kernow 19:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they played for Tasmania, rather than being Tasmanians themselves. (Also it agrees with the sibling categories). Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for consistency with siblings. -- I@n ≡ talk 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese term of the TurboGrafx 16 video game console, this category is currently empty. I moved everything to Category:TurboGrafx 16 games. Should be deleted. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT are all PC Engine games released in North America for the TG16? IIRC there are SuperGrafx games in the PC Engine cat, and SG was not released in North America... 132.205.44.134 00:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response no other video game system has its own japanese equivalent games category. What is typically done is the US games category with the addition of Category:Japan exclusive computer and video games. However this existing category have its content changed to show that it refers to both PC engine and tg16 games. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Cricketers by skill
- 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 all - TexasAndroid 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is to delete the following 36 categories:
- Category:All-rounders and all its nine national subcategories;
- Category:Batsmen and all its thirteen national subcategories;
- Category:Bowlers and all its eleven national subcategories.
Delete. Categorising cricketers by skill, in addition to by nationality and by first-class and national teams, seemed like a good idea, but in practice it hasn't worked well.
In brief, the main problem is that it is often doubtful which category a player belongs in. In cricket, all bowlers are required to bat, and many batsmen also bowl a bit, so there is no clear division between batsmen and all-rounders (players who are good at both batting and bowling); or between all-rounders and bowlers. Many fans perceive their heroes as being all-rounders, leading to NPOV problems in classification. As a result, these categories have never really caught on, and many (most?) players don't use them.
A straw poll at WikiProject Cricket showed unanimous support for deleting these categories. However, there is no consensus at WikiProject Cricket whether the parallel wicket-keeper categories should stay or go, so these are not being proposed for deletion.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. It's quite arbitrary as to whether a player is a specialist or an all-rounder a lot of the time, too. The difference between a "batsman who bowls a bit" and an all-rounder can be negligible. Just looking at my own country's national team I'd have to wonder about whether you would call Nathan Astle or Daniel Vettori all-rounders or a batsman and bowler respectively - not to mention the problems with players who changed during their careers (a recent NZ example would be Mark Richardson). These categories are too troublesome to be of any real use, even discounting the triple-cross-referencing foul-ups that they can cause. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I@n ≡ talk 15:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
2 Protected Areas of the United States categories
- 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 - TexasAndroid 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:United States National Historic Landmarks → Category:National Historic Landmarks of the United States
- Category:United States National Preserves → Category:National Preserves of the United States
Makes the naming in-line with other similar categories, such as Category:National Natural Landmarks of the United States and Category:National Memorials of the United States. — Eoghanacht talk 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per my nom. — Eoghanacht talk 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as per mass renaming of NI categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 3. Kurando | ^_^ 12:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhoeble (talk • contribs)
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 16:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename --Mal 08:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category is a collection of all the descendent categories of Category:Cricket, flattened out. Its purpose appears to be to avoid people having to browse the category hierarchy in order to find the category they are looking for. I feel this is a bad precedent.
This category survived previous votes for deletion in January 2005 and in June 2005 with no consensus being reached. However, I feel it's time to revisit it. Its creator, jguk (t·c), has left Wikipedia, and there is now a consensus at WikiProject Cricket to delete it.
I intend to notify all the people who took part in the previous debates. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I would hate to see this happen for American football or basketball, say, where there are now at least a thousand subcategories. I don't have a real stake in the cricket categories, though, so I could imagine changing my mind if a cricket fan had a really good reason for this.--Mike Selinker 13:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as before. --Kbdank71 14:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've argued extensively against this category previously, and Wikipedia policy has changed since then to support my position more explicitly as well. If this category isn't deleted it should at a bare minimum be moved to the category talk pages for the various cricket subcategories. Bryan 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Happy for this to go if WP:Cricket is happy. --Nick Boalch ?!? 08:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with the above KingStrato 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. -- I@n ≡ talk 15:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason this category was left out when the other subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions by city were standardised. (I'm leaving the contents of the U.S. category to one side for the moment. I'd like to rename them too, but I suspect that some American users wouldn't approve. In any case this doesn't match the American categories either). Rename Category:Visitor attractions in Hong Kong. CalJW 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete TexasAndroid 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't fit at all, and it's empty. see its talk page. Snargle 05:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Empty now; was created by an anon who may have been unclear on the concept. -choster 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. David Kernow 16:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. This category should be changed to matched the main article, Queen's University. The use of the ", Canada" qualifier is unnecessary and awkward form. See related discussion. --67.70.161.113 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep / Oppose. There are other Queen's Universities around, e.g. Belfast. Otherwise, this would set the Canadian above the rest. Ian Cairns 12:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only one other school. The other is officially called the Queen's University of Belfast, always with the regional qualifier. The Canadian school has no such qualifier. Putting in a regional qualifier after a comma has the misleading effect of suggesting there is more than one campus, as in University of California, Berkeley — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- I know two graduates of Queen's University in my home town in England - neither has ever set foot in Canada. The British usage is to refer to the nearer university as Queen's University, as per Bhoeble's contribution. The Canadian university is almost unknown. Wikipedia has a policy of calling things by their common name, not necessarily their formal name. I have no problem with the anon suggestion of Queen's University (Canada) and, similarly, Queen's University (Belfast). The Canadian main article needs renaming in conformance. Ian Cairns 00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. use of official names for both Queen's Unis. is best Mayumashu 05:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It is not true that the other one is always used with a qualifier. I have never heard of the university in Canada so "Queen's University" means the one in Belfast to me. Bhoeble 18:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, and even if you have not heard of the university, it should not be Queen's University, Canada, rather Queen's University (Canada) if you think Queen's University is ambiguous. 132.205.44.134 00:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. I'm with Mayumashu, use the official names for both Universities.--Greenmind 04:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep - TexasAndroid 17:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one member, and unlikely to add more, Third Lanark A.C. ended in 1967 -- ProveIt (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Have a look at Category:English popes and Category:Polish popes. --Mais oui! 07:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They existed for 85 years and we will very likely have a complete collection of articles about their managers one day. CalJW 08:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensous - TexasAndroid 17:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See: Category:Newcastle in Film and TV (blanked by creator) -- ProveIt (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Category:Newcastle in Film and TV breaks the capitalisation policy, best practice on abbreviations and the standard division between film and television. On the other handCategory:Television programmes set in Newcastle is fine. I have moved the three films in the former up to category:Newcastle upon Tyne culture (though I would have no objection to them being moved back to a film category, so I don't see that as a final move). This just leaves television programmes in Category:Newcastle in Film and TV . Reverse merge Category:Newcastle in Film and TV into Category:Television programmes set in Newcastle CalJW 08:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Parent category is "Newcastle upon Tyne" This category - whatever name is decided upon, should also have the cuty's full name, since there are other well known Newcastles (notably in NSW, Australia). Grutness...wha? 02:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Could be renamed Category:Television programmes set in Newcastle upon Tyne. Bhoeble 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted TexasAndroid 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See: Category:Indian government stubs
- See: Category:Indian military stubs
- Blanked by User:Shyamsunder -- ProveIt (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An abandoned project .... -- ProveIt (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See: Category:Pakistan movement (blanked by creator) -- ProveIt (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep - TexasAndroid 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These two categories are redundant, as are their similarily named sub categories (World War II naval ships of country x and World War II ships of country x), however those sub categories are (generally) mutually exclusive (World War II battleships of country x will typically exist in either ships or naval ships but not both), which makes this a navigation nightmare. As an example, if you were looking for the United Kingdom's World War II ships, some (battleships, cruisers, etc.) would be in Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom, while others (destroyers, aircraft carriers, etc.) are in Category:World War II ships of the United Kingdom. Kralizec! (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, not all notable WWII ships were naval ships. The luxury liner Ile de France comes to mind as a notable ship involved in WWII. Then there's notable merchant shipping involved in battles at sea with commerce raiders or interdictors. There's the Norwegian ferry that was raided by partisans to stop heavy water being shipped to Nazi Germany, etc. 132.205.44.134 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, as per previous vote. I agree that the vast majority are naval, but it would really take making a sub-cat for naval ships and moving the relevant ones down to do it right. Josh 03:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created by an inexperience user, and the only article in the category is a copyvio. It should be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhoeble (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 16:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect capitalisation. Created new one with second word lowercase, before realising I could request speedy renaming. The category is new, however, and there were only a couple articles in it before I moved them to the more proper name. Drat (Talk) 02:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom but more because category name is vague. Have proposed Category:Spiritual sequels renaming here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Kernow (talk • contribs)
- 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.
April 11
- 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. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant as Category:NCFCA already exists. Beyond that, it's a NN category with little to no room for growth pm_shef 23:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) name uniformity--the main article uses this format, 2) Google test has more hits for "music genres" (6.3m) over "musical genres" (2.8m) and 3) it further disambiguates the category from "Musical" theatre. --Kunzite 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. David Kernow 09:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Brevity is wit, or something. Flowerparty? 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- by extension to the policy on 'by nation'. Whatever is decided here will need to be applied to Category:French speaking countries, Category:German speaking countries. Ian Cairns 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 23:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. English is spoken in Japan, but Japan is not an English-speaking country. But then, all these categories are somewhat dubious in that way. -choster 20:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Either keep under the present name or delete. The proposed new name is out of the question as English is spoken in all countries. CalJW 00:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this rename as per CalJW & Choster. On a point of punctuation, if kept, this should be renamed Category:English-speaking countries with a hyphen. Perhaps Category:Countries where English is an official language might be a possibility?? Valiantis 01:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would exclue the US which does not have an official language--it seems to be half? of the category--these don't seem to be well populated categories. --Kunzite 03:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would also exclude England! --Mais oui! 08:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's questionable whether it is possible for England to have an official language as there is no national or subnational government of England to state what the official language is. If you're talking about the United Kingdom, then it is a matter of debate whether English is an official language. The WP article declares it a de facto official language. Clearly there is no single statute that states "English is the (or an) official language of the United Kingdom"; however, it is the language of Parliament (legislature), of the courts (judiciary) and of the executive branch of government. I'm well aware of the issues regarding the name I suggested, but it has the advantage of verifiability, unlike the current name or the suggested re-name. The fact that IMO it is still debatable whether a language is "official" or not would encourage me to suggest this cat is better as a list where such issues could be recorded, than as a cat. Valiantis 14:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would also exclude England! --Mais oui! 08:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all Category:X speaking countries to Category:X-speaking countries per Valiantis. (Not that I've ever heard a country speak in anything but a metaphorical manner.) David Kernow 10:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brevity. The category text itself says "Things having to do with luck." Melchoir 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. CalJW 08:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename
to Category:Superstition...?David Kernow 10:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Rename per nom. It's already a subcategory of Category:Superstitions. - EurekaLott 14:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Missed that; have amended vote accordingly. Thanks, David Kernow 01:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. all philosophers listed appear to be (i checked those with Slavic looking names) Roman Catholics and not Eastern Orthodox Christians, Old Catholics, or of any other Catholic sect Mayumashu 23:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. (nothing to merge) - TexasAndroid 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created a few days ago and left empty by the creator, presumably because s/he realised it was a duplicate. Merge into Category:Australian organisations. CalJW 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- comment merge into Category:Australian organisations yeah? Mayumashu 23:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I meant. I've changed it to that. CalJW 00:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Films in Cantonese to Category:Cantonese-language films or Category:Cantonese films or Keep
- 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 no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Submitter abstained, and noone else commented. Even if the "rename all" opinions on the one below this are intended to apply to this one (which is a little stretch), each of the submissions in this one have two options as to how to rename them, and no opinions given as to which should be used. - TexasAndroid 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see comments below. Category:Chinese language films was renamed from Category:Films in Chinese in February by an admin, acting in good faith to achieve consistency, but without prior discussion. The cat name had previously been discussed in CFD here and consensus was to rename to "Films in Chinese" (the political/linguistic reasons can be seen in the previous discussion). Category:Films in Cantonese was renamed thus at the same time for the same reason (see here) but, presumably as it is a subcat of the Chinese cat, was missed in the general renaming. I'm nominating them here without a specific rename proposal to get a consensus. My vote is Abstain. I haven't included them in the proposal below as I consider the unilateral renaming of the cat in February to be an inappropriate action. However, I would prefer consistency so I also don't want to "vote" for a rename back to "Films in Chinese" at the expense of consistency. Valiantis 21:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename all. - TexasAndroid 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Arabic language films to Category:Arabic-language films
- Category:Aramaic language films to Category:Aramaic-language films
- Category:Bengali language films to Category:Bengali-language films
- Category:English language films to Category:English-language films
- Category:French language films to Category:French-language films
- Category:Italian language films to Category:Italian-language films
- Category:Japanese language films to Category:Japanese-language films
- Category:Korean language films to Category:Korean-language films
- Category:Kurdish language films to Category:Kurdish-language films
- Category:Russian language films to Category:Russian-language films
- Category:Spanish language films to Category:Spanish-language films
- Category:Welsh language films to Category:Welsh-language films
I nominated the subcats of Category:Films by language for renaming previously (see discussion) but there was no consensus on my proposal to rename all subcats to "Films in Fooian". Some weeks after that failed proposal an admin, acting in good faith to achieve consistency, renamed a number of the subcats without prior discussion. He chose to rename all to the form "Fooian language films" as the majority were (ungrammatically) thus named. The unhyphenated version is at best ambiguous and at worst downright incorrect. Please see hyphen#Rules and customs of usage. I'm now making an alternative proposal as per above so that the names are at least grammatical. Please also see the nomination re: Category:Chinese language films and Category:Films in Cantonese above which I am listing separately. Valiantis 20:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. CalJW 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom, i.e. insert them missing hyphens. David Kernow 10:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). "Rome (television)" means the general concept of Rome on television. Individual TV series should be glossed with (TV series) in parenthesis. Also matches the article name - Rome (TV series). The category description explicitly states it is about the HBO/BBC TV series not the concept in general. Valiantis 20:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:United Kingdom law enforcement agencies to Category:Law enforcement agencies of the United Kingdom
- 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. - TexasAndroid 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds awkward because the standard adjective is "British". Most of the categories for other countries are in the form "Law enforcement agencies of Foo. Rename Honbicot 17:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom Scranchuse 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 10:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was wrong page. - TexasAndroid 18:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- moved to WP:SFD BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The capitalisation is incorrect and the article for the sport is at ten-pin bowling. Rename Honbicot 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom Scranchuse 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 10:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Fjorn 19:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV. All or most of the articles are already in the appropriate categories (and several other inappropriate ones in some cases) so simply delete. Honbicot 17:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep notable, useful --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Point of view. No other sport has a category like this. Scranchuse 20:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. CalJW 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as incorrectly capitalised and "World Leading" undefined. David Kernow 10:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above, highly notable and extremily useful - if other sports don't have this category then I suggest they are created - very useful indeed. It's not POV it's based on their achievements - even ESPN, Sky Sports, ABC and SportsCenter agree. --Fjorn (poke)(prod) 19:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does ten-pin bowling have some sort of international ranking system, such as in tennis? If so, rename to Category:World-ranked ten-pin bowlers. David Kernow 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Appears to be personal opinion. Bhoeble 11:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was withdrawn. - TexasAndroid 19:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The two categories cover essentially the same topic. Most articles listed could go in either category; the rest in a subcategory or alternate category.
*Merge to Fungi --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per below --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Types of Fungi belong in Category:Fungi, whereas Category:Mycology is for their study. Subject and science are generally distinct, e.g. Category:Insects and Category:Entomology or Category:Planetary science and Category:Planets. Some cleanup may be required of course.-choster 21:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per choster. David Kernow 10:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Or otherwise we'd merge Category:People and Category:Anthropology SP-KP 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how or why this would be useful to anyone. Arniep 14:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A very mariginal attribute. Scranchuse 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivia. CalJW 21:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Those who want it deleted in all likelyhood don't even know what the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards are. Besides, it's not any different than the category for Academy Awards hosts. TMC1982 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I note you created the category. Arniep 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that really relevant? Why don't you address his point? --JeffW 21:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's relevant as someone who created a category is obviously going to vote keep whatever anyone says. Whatever the Kids Choice Awards are I don't think it can be important enough to the person's involved to warrant it's own category on all their pages. Arniep 02:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that really relevant? Why don't you address his point? --JeffW 21:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I note you created the category. Arniep 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I really find it hard to accept the idea that just because you don't know what the American children's cable television network, Nickelodeon's annual award show is about, doesn't automatically warrant deletion. I'm sure that there are numerous award shows that certain people don't usually pay attention two. Since the Kids' Choice Awards have been around for nearly 20 years, it (if you ask me) carries enough of a historical background (so to speak) to warrant extra catagories. TMC1982 16 April 2006
- I'm not saying it isn't important to some people, but the question is is it really that important in relation to the career of the people in the cat, the answer I think, is no. Arniep 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards didn't have a lot of wide-spread news articles about it (at least on the Internet) until about 1997. I didn't even know for sure, who hosted the program beyond 1995 before finding the article on wikipedia.com. There have been many big stars (e.g. Cameron Diaz, Mike Myers, Jack Black, Ben Stiller, etc.) who have hosted the program (to go along presenting and/or arriving in person) in the past few years (thus lending the show credibility). Just because the program airs on cable shouldn't automatically downgrade its merit. I would create (time and energy permitting) create a catagory that for people who have hosted the MTV Video Music Awards and MTV Movie Awards.TMC1982 18 April 2006
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move. Dropping the "DJ" from the title to go along with the move of the article from DJ Danger Mouse to Danger Mouse. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 19:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge duplicate categories. The standard naming for countries is "Sport in Foo", it makes sense to use the same standard for continents. AJR | Talk 10:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. --Mais oui! 11:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose That is not what the category was originally intended for. I don't see the need to divide all the sports articles up on a continental basis. What it was intended for and is useful is coverage of transnational European sports events and leagues. Rename both category:Transnational sports events in Europe and move out the couple of items which don't fit that description which have been added. Bhoeble 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. gidonb 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While there is a strong consensous to rename, there is no consensous as to what the new name should be. - TexasAndroid 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:POINT creation by Tobias Conradi to illustrate his contention of category renaming for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4. The term is non-standard, having one badly translated reference in one document. The category itself is not notable, as these few articles are already categorized in their respective countries. --William Allen Simpson 10:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Useful to get an international overview. The name perhaps could be re-thought though, but I'm out of ideas! How about something with "defunct" or "historical"? --Mais oui! 11:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be Category:Historical administrative divisions by country, and if the category is useful, then I would support that rename. --William Allen Simpson 11:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename
per WASper Ezhiki (below) --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Rename per User:WAS Mayumashu 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, it was not a point creation, I wanted to collect former and historical country subdivisions. such a cat simply did not exist. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - the cat may include non-administrative subdivisions. This would result in cat-splitting. Furthermore if the other cats are not renamed WP gets a mixture of different catnames. Let's discuss this issue first, before rushing into rename. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as suggested by WAS. Kestenbaum 23:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as suggested by WAS. CalJW 08:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Category:Historical divisions by country. Tobias is right, not all of the divisions covered by this cat would be administrative.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Category:Historical divisions by country. per Ëzhiki Carlossuarez46 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Such "pseudo-divisions" should not be included. What kind of divisions might these be: "political divisions", "corporate divisions", "automotive divisions"? Just because a Wikipedia editor describes something as a division does not make it so. Regions are not administrative divisions unless they meet the definition. These are technical meanings of phrases that cannot be decided by a vote here, they would require political bodies to change their own legal definitions and usage of the phrase. Please join the reality-based community. --William Allen Simpson 17:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment2 Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4 - the subdivision categories survived. So maybe better to use "Category:Historical subdivisions by country". Especially since a division is allready one type of entities in administrative context. See: Division (subnational entity). Thus Historical divisions by country would correctly only include those of Pakistan and maybe some that were dissolved in India. It could also refer to historical military units, see the allready existing interference with Category:Divisions - a category where the administrative entities of Myanmar, India, Bangladesh etc are not allowed to enter. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They got a no consensus result so there is no precedent created. --JeffW 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The closer was confused by Conradi's voluminous objections. An actual count shows a clear consensus. As long as a few disruptive influences such as Conradi can override more knowledgable folks, there will never be "consensus". --William Allen Simpson 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO Willy should provide evidence for these claims. Fuerthermore: more disruptive to me seems that once again Willy started a poll on this while a discussion was started at Category_talk:Country subdivisions (for new poll see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#Subdivisions_to_appropriate_divisions) and he hides certain facts again on purpose or on unability/unwilligness to work cleanly. Willy stated for the second time (even after corrected when doing so the first time) that certain pages are under a certain name, but when examined it turns out he only lately moved them there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal -- I take great offense at the denigration by Conradi, and use of diminuative name calling. Due to his obvious ignorance of Scottish history, he probably has no idea of the offensiveness of his words.
- Conradi obfuscated the clear results of the previous CfD by putting the following notice on several talk pages of these persons:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Changlc&diff=prev&oldid=47664176
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Big_Adamsky&diff=prev&oldid=47669133
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:E_Pluribus_Anthony&diff=prev&oldid=47669347
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Earl_Andrew&diff=prev&oldid=47669454
- Conradi obfuscated the clear results of the previous CfD by putting the following notice on several talk pages of these persons:
- need your help, kind of urgent, someone wants to split the cats and articles of "subdivisons of XY" to "Administatrive divisions of some countries" and "Political divisions of some other countries".
- Conradi also posted a request to change their vote on the pages of many (all?) of the persons supporting the change:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luigizanasi&diff=prev&oldid=47665244
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Kernow&diff=prev&oldid=47665514
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayumashu&diff=prev&oldid=47666192
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Minister_of_War&diff=prev&oldid=47666394
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Esprit15d&diff=prev&oldid=47667165
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carlossuarez46&diff=prev&oldid=47668488
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carina22&diff=prev&oldid=47668595
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ezhiki&diff=next&oldid=47581683 through http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ezhiki&diff=prev&oldid=47972422
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kestenbaum&diff=prev&oldid=48047116
- Conradi also posted a request to change their vote on the pages of many (all?) of the persons supporting the change:
- This last minute vote mongering and voluminous commentary and objections by Conradi caused the closer to ask that the entirety be relisted, and that is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#Subdivisions_to_appropriate_divisions).
- As the same technique is occuring here, I ask that this behind the scenes maneuvering be taken into account when closing this request. --William Allen Simpson 17:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot speak for others, but as to the notices posted by Tobias on my talk page, they were per my request to keep me informed of such things.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As the same technique is occuring here, I ask that this behind the scenes maneuvering be taken into account when closing this request. --William Allen Simpson 17:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 19:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalisation. Peter Grey 07:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy after comment. Vegaswikian 05:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Captial "B" Bishops is better -- it is more in keeping with the importance of the office of Bishop! Pastorwayne 14:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Category:Bishops by nationality all use bishops. Vegaswikian 05:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 05:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 14:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nom. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles. Valiantis 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge/delete. - TexasAndroid 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose deleting Category:New Zealand top 10 singles and Category:Australian top 10 singles (see below), and moving the only other occupant of this "pretty vacant" (get it?) category - Category:Number one singles - into Category:Singles. I feel that this category is too small and lacking in usefuleness to stand alone, and that Category:Number one singles is sufficiently important to be a level higher. --kingboyk 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 14:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I created this supercat to reflect the reality that people rank music by popularity all the time. All the billboard charts, top ten lists, number 1 singles, and download rankings are just examples of grouping by popularity. Not to mention the Dr. Demento Funny Five. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it's all but empty, adds an extra navigational hop, and hides the very important "number one singles" category from the higher level supercategory. --kingboyk 17:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I expect it would grow when people start creating cats for internet download rankings.-- ProveIt (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ProveIt --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain Most articles on singles will be in one or more of the sub-sub-cats of Category:Singles. It is standard practice to subdivide large "higher-level" cats firstly into "X by Y" categories; Category:Singles is currently subdivided into several such "Singles by..." categories. I do wonder however if Category:Singles is large enough currently to make the superstructure worthwhile. (Argued myself out of a keep vote here!) Valiantis 20:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No legitimate content except number 1 singles, and I wouldn't care if that was abolished too. Scranchuse 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - some singles could be put in a massive number of categories if we sort like this.TheGrappler 15:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Flowerparty? 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No other countries see fit to record top 10 singles which - unlike number one hits - are rather unremarkable and potentially very numerous. Also, these two categories are the sole occupants of Category:Singles by popularity besides Category:Number one singles, which is a very healthy category with many subcategories. --kingboyk 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If copied for other countries this could lead to too many singles being in too many categories. Bhoeble 14:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I'm all for killing unused categories ... but people are using this one. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And editors are using many categories that are deleted, so usage is not a reason to keep. Vegaswikian 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Proveit --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that it is used doesn't make it a good idea. Some singles have made the top ten in fifty or more countries. Scranchuse 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A bad precedent. The number 1s categories should be deleted too as chart success is a poor guide to lasting encyclopedic significance. CalJW 08:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. First, 10 is an arbitrary number to stop at (unless the chart only goes up to 10?) Second, there's a lot more countries in the world than Australia and NZ, and succesful songs will chart in dozens of them, so imagine how many catgories they'd be put in. Also, we don't really have articles about singles, we have articles about songs, so for songs where there's a notable cover version (American Pie, for example), there's no meaningful way to assign "top 10" to the subject of the article, which is "American Pie" the song, not "American Pie" the 2000 single by Madonna. Anyone volunteering to nominate the 'number ones'? Flowerparty? 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm strongly in favour of retaining the number ones categories. In days gone by, the number one was hallowed turf. It really meant something. Many music buffs, myself included, enjoy reading about the records that have hit the top spot, and find the category useful - what we don't need is some massive, arbitrary categorisation such as "top 10", "top 23 and a half", etc etc. Furthermore, whilst I accept that many if not most notable singles did not reach number one, I believe (and I think WP:MUSIC backs me up on this) that a number one hit in a sizeable country automatically confers notability. --kingboyk 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's why I wasn't going to nominate them myself :) I guess it doesn't hurt to have the number one cats. It's worth noting, however, that our list coverage in this area is excellent, at least for US/UK: List of number-one singles (UK), List of number-one hits (United States). Flowerparty☀ 23:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm strongly in favour of retaining the number ones categories. In days gone by, the number one was hallowed turf. It really meant something. Many music buffs, myself included, enjoy reading about the records that have hit the top spot, and find the category useful - what we don't need is some massive, arbitrary categorisation such as "top 10", "top 23 and a half", etc etc. Furthermore, whilst I accept that many if not most notable singles did not reach number one, I believe (and I think WP:MUSIC backs me up on this) that a number one hit in a sizeable country automatically confers notability. --kingboyk 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No other countries see fit to record top 10 singles which - unlike number one hits - are rather unremarkable and potentially very numerous. Also, these two categories are the sole occupants of Category:Singles by popularity besides Category:Number one singles, which is a very healthy category with many subcategories. --kingboyk 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If copied for other countries this could lead to too many singles being in too many categories. Bhoeble 14:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; People are using it ProveIt (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeep useful --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that it is used doesn't make it a good idea. Some singles have made the top ten in fifty or more countries. Scranchuse 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A bad precedent. The number 1s categories should be deleted too as chart success is a poor guide to lasting encyclopedic significance. CalJW 08:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - some singles could be put in a massive number of categories if we sort like this.TheGrappler 15:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Flowerparty? 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant (Category:Capitol Broadcasting Company) -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redundant debate. - TexasAndroid 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's with all these subpages in the category space. I thought that wasn't allowed. --JeffW 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, it's not allowed. All of those are already up for renaming. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But you're proposing deleting the properly formatted name in favor of the improper name? --JeffW 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant, blanked by creator -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe the slash makes both of these subpages which are not allowed in the Category name space. --JeffW 22:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
too narrow -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 14:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Scranchuse 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, hold on. The Chiefs are normally known as a football team. This category has BASEBALL players for the defunct (but unrelated) team of the same name. What happened to the contents of this category?--Mike Selinker 15:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my mistake, It's not redundant. Blanked by User:MisfitToys. ProveIt (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it might be. I can't find any evidence that a baseball team called the Kansas CIty Chiefs ever existed. I wonder what was in this category?--Mike Selinker 02:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the revision history, this category was created by Mike Selinker on Feb 19, 2006 -- ProveIt (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I saw that, and I'm sure I had a good reason at the time, but what it was is impossible to tell without knowing what the deleted contents were. So I'd say delete it, and if we come across a player who deserves the category, we'll know why.--Mike Selinker 00:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Explanation: I moved Charley Jones from this cat to Category:Kansas City Cowboys players, the correct one. I'm sure that was the only article there; Mike added the category to Jones' article on the same day he created the category. MisfitToys 00:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that explains it then. Delete this so I don't have this mistake on my permanent record.--Mike Selinker 18:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redundant. - TexasAndroid 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Computer vision/People instead as it has the illegal name. --JeffW 22:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by User:Achmelvic -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redundant. - TexasAndroid 00:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Computer vision/Software instead as it has the illegal name. --JeffW 22:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
April 10
- 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 TexasAndroid 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe prior discussions concluded that we shouldn't categorise films by actor. Extraordinary Machine 23:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - choster 13:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 14:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 19:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete TexasAndroid 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The battleship class has been changed to Tegetthoff. The original items of this category were migrated into newly created Category:Tegetthoff class battleships. Sandius 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete although I must say that it would have been better to leave things where they were and propose this as a rename so we could have a chance to do the cfd without the results already being dictated. Josh 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 22:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to Category:Washington state highways. Got mired in some silly process arguments so has to come here again. In the U.S. state of Washington, a state highway is a road maintained by the state. This includes Interstates and U.S. Routes. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, after coming across this while clearing out SD candidates. (several times.) State highway states that interstates, US routes, and state highways are distinct things. These terms may be used differently in local areas- eg in Washington- but notice that Category:Washington state highways contains both subcats as well as state routes. If interstates and US numbered highways deserve their own cats, so do state routes; i can see little reason to categorize them under what is also an umbrella cat. IMO Category:Washington highways should remain as an umbrella, with the three cats for state routes, interstates etc underneath. While state highways may be used in washington to refer to any state maintained road, they aren't therefore equivelant to interstates and US routes when setting up categories on wikipedia. see my talk for more discussion with SPUI and Rschen7754. (And again, why isn't this being sorted out at WikiProject Highways, WikiProject Washington State Highways, or WikiProject U.S. Roads?????) --He:ah? 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Heah. BoojiBoy
- Delete and make Interstates and US Highways as subcategories of Washington state highways.Polaron 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your reasoning? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I;ve stated it over and over. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason you've stated is that you think it should be deleted but others might want it kept. Closing admin: please treat Rschen7754's vote as a delete. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- People are absolutely NOT required to give their reasons for voting the way they do; the closing admin can take whatever comments and opinions into consideration that they would like. Rschen7754 clearly said "keep". Don't be silly, SPUI, this is getting kind of irritating . . . --He:ah? 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a democracy, this is not a vote. If you don't provide a reason it seems entirely appropriate to me for the closing admin to discount the vote. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You can;'t do that! It should be kept because it presents the proper hierarchy for the system. Stop trying to get the category speedied. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not trying to get it speedied, this is Categories for Deletion. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the history of the category, he is. Very clearly. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You still can't take an obvious Keep vote and say "please treat Rschen7754's vote as a delete." BoojiBoy 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one more reason why SPUI is up for RFC, he's a dick. JohnnyBGood 19:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You still can't take an obvious Keep vote and say "please treat Rschen7754's vote as a delete." BoojiBoy 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the history of the category, he is. Very clearly. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not trying to get it speedied, this is Categories for Deletion. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- People are absolutely NOT required to give their reasons for voting the way they do; the closing admin can take whatever comments and opinions into consideration that they would like. Rschen7754 clearly said "keep". Don't be silly, SPUI, this is getting kind of irritating . . . --He:ah? 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason you've stated is that you think it should be deleted but others might want it kept. Closing admin: please treat Rschen7754's vote as a delete. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I;ve stated it over and over. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your reasoning? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, weakly, as redundant—although my personal preference would be to move Category:Washington state highways in its current form to Category:Washington highways after the deletion, to mitigate any confusion. (Or merge, or reverse merge, or whatever; frankly the terminology is all kind of confusing.) --phh 01:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, "highways" can refer to many things not covered by "state highways" as not all highways are nessecarily numbered and state owned. JohnnyBGood 18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Heah. As the terminology is confusing and different for different areas and circumstances, it's best to maintain the most general form possible. siafu 19:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per SPUI. The keep voters have failed to explain why this should be kept, other than that they don't like SPUI. Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a redundant category. There are state highways maintained by the state of Washington, and there are federal highways that pass through Washington. Surely we don't need a category for the latter. — Apr. 12, '06 [12:39] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Keep regardless of what one state says about what is and isn't an X Y or Z, a consistent nomenclature and binning of X Y and Z across all states, that fits what a person (not familiar with a particular state's idiosyncratic nomenclature) would reasonably expect is what we should strive for, and keeping this category seems a step in the right direction. Hopefully that explains WHY it should be kept. For the record, not that you asked me personally, I like SPUI, a lot. I just don't like some of his actions here... Suggesting that people are voting keep because they don't like SPUI seems not quite correct to me, YMMV of course. ++Lar: t/c 12:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not because it's redundant (even though it may be), but because it would contain only three subcategories and nothing else. Suggestion: to address the objection of interstates and US highways being subcategories of state highways, move Category:Interstate Highways in Washington and Category:U.S. Highways in Washington to be subcategories of Category:Transportation in Washington. Usgnus 19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Heah. Gene Nygaard 03:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. atanamir 06:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 06:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename the wub "?!" 22:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This category should simply be changed to matched the main article, Queen's University of Belfast.--67.70.161.113 20:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Clearer as to what is meant. Djegan 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 14:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete TexasAndroid 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
for Paragons of virtue; needs objective inclusion criteria -- ProveIt (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure personal opinion. Sumahoy 23:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV. Bhoeble 14:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems to be a POV'ed subset of Category:People. siafu 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete TexasAndroid 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See: Category:Cleveland Indians (NFL) players ProveIt (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The league abbreviation is better as a parenthetical than the sport.--Mike Selinker 00:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's a Cleveland Indians (NFL) article but no Cleveland Indians (football) article. Usgnus 19:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus therefore keep. the wub "?!" 22:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Previous rename debate[reply]
- Rename.This category should be changed to matched the main article, Queen's University. The use of the ", Canada" qualifier is unnecessary and awkward form. 67.70.161.113 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or rename differently. There is already at least one other Queen's University in Belfast. --Mal 01:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The other school is officially called the Queen's University of Belfast, always with the regional qualifier. The Canadian school has no such qualifier. Putting in a regional qualifier after a comma has the misleading effect of suggesting there is more than one campus, as in University of California, Berkeley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.161.113 (talk • contribs)
- That does not prevent possible confusion over the name: Queen's University applies to both the Canadian university and to the British university. Therefore a regional qualifer is obviously needed. This renaming is unacceptable as it could lead to ambiguity. --Mal 07:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. BoojiBoy 02:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. also do up Category:Queen's University, Canada and Category:Queen's University, Canada faculty at some point Mayumashu 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per article title. siafu 19:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Queen's University is a common enough usage for the Belfast university. Usgnus 20:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Ardenn 01:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mal and Usgnus. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mal et al. theKeith 12:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename at the very least this shold not be , Canada but rather Queen's University (Canada) ... 132.205.44.134 00:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So would you support the renaming of the cat to Queen's University (Canada) alumni then perhaps? --Mal 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to proper name to match main article.--Greenmind 04:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:IAS to Category:International Accounting Standards
Category:IFRS to Category:International Financial Reporting Standards
Category:GAAP to Category:Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
- 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. the wub "?!" 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviations should be avoided unless the full name is ridiculously long or less clear than the abbreviation. CalJW 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename [as nom.] CalJW 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't rename - The names are to long the acronyms would be better and mean the same thing. SirIsaacBrock 22:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Wikipedia is for the public, not for specialists who know what obscure acronyms mean. Sumahoy 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom and Sumahoy. David Kernow 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all as above. Thryduulf 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 14:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. No argument. siafu 19:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom and Sumahoy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 22:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the word "accounting" is a commonly used verb it sounds odd as the name of the subject area category. The main article is Accountancy. CalJW 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename [as nom.] CalJW 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - some people say TomAto and some people say Tomato ! No difference SirIsaacBrock 22:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. I suppose I make a distinction between the activity "accounting" and the profession/methodology/study "accountancy". David Kernow 02:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to match the main article. Thryduulf 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge with Category:Accountancy. the wub "?!" 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Miscellaneous" categories are just a bad idea. Articles should be put in more accurate categories where possible, but where that is not yet or will never be appropriate they should be left in the general category. CalJW 17:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge [as nom] with category:Accounting (or with Category:Accountancy if the renaming proposed above goes through.) CalJW 17:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - I am flexible on this so if there is a consensus my vote is merge. SirIsaacBrock 22:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Sumahoy 23:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom to Category:Accounting. -choster 01:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. David Kernow 02:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per CalJW. Thryduulf 13:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only national media category name out of 110 which included the word "mass". The everyday meaning of media is clear and requires no qualifier. Rename CalJW 17:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Sumahoy 23:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 14:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 22:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think it is inherently POV -- particularly since the creator also made it a subcategory of Category:People noted for being in rare medical or psychological categories. But what caught my attention is the inclusion of Cao Pi in this category, which shows that this category would be POV -- whether Cao Pi was "self-declared" or was legitimately given his throne by Emperor Xian of Han is a matter of perspective. (Similar problems exist with the other two current Chinese occupants of the category, Sima Lun and Wang Shichong.) I don't think the category can be NPOV, and therefore should be deleted. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. Could you point me to a reliable source that describes such a controversy? I can't find any. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of support and ambiguity have forced me to change my vote. As creator of this category, I request deletion.
Keep.The category accurately describes the self-declaration of Emperor by historical figures. If a conflict about a certain figure arises, it should be discussed on the appropriate talk page, rather than deleting an entire category. The member category may or may not be appropriate; I added it to match Category:Self-declared messiahs. It may also be necessary to add a statement about restricting this category to certain individuals, such as usurpers. —Viriditas | Talk 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete Hard to see how there could be any non-controversial entries. Sumahoy 23:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the member category which indeed, was controversial. I don't see any problem, now. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still POV, however, and removing the member category does not help that all that much. --Nlu (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the member category which indeed, was controversial. I don't see any problem, now. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Anyone can self declare themselves an emperor. JohnnyBGood 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't follow you. —Viriditas | Talk 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, though I would say that it's doomed to being misinformed rather than purely POV. The nature of historical events often does not allow for self-declaration to be clearly established. That aside, however, the more important problem is that these entries do not have much in common; certainly, the founders of each of the Chinese dynasties are self-declared, as are the founders of various empires (e.g., Napoleon). In all these many cases, the term "empire" and "emperor" do not necessarily mean the same thing, and as mentioned the term "self-declared" is itself unclear. siafu 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the term is unclear, and as a result, I am changing my vote to delete. —Viriditas | Talk 06:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and siafu CalJW 08:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as previous. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There were people, e.g. coup leaders, crowning themselves as kings or emperors when the coup is close to be successful. Keep and rename as category:self-declared emperors and kings. — Instantnood 12:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant to Category:Ramsar sites in Pakistan Siddiqui Siddiqui 15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge to Category:The West Wing (TV series). the wub "?!" 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant to Category:The West Wing (TV series) ProveIt (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- REVERSE MERGE The West Wing (TV series) is clearer. 132.205.45.110 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge - TexasAndroid 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; For a reverse merge, The West Wing (TV series) should also be renamed. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Category:The West Wing into Category:The West Wing (TV series). Thryduulf 13:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Thryduulf. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge both Category:Rome (television) Characters and Category:Rome characters to Category:Rome (TV series) characters. the wub "?!" 22:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant to Category:Rome characters ProveIt (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- REVERSE MERGE there are other things called Rome with characters. 132.205.45.110 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge - TexasAndroid 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both to Category:Rome (TV series) characters to match the article title. siafu 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both to Category:Rome (TV series) characters as per siafu. This is the agreed naming convention for television series (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)). (In which case Category:Rome (television) also requires a rename). Valiantis 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete TexasAndroid 20:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by User:David Kernow ProveIt (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment perhaps People executed by the commission during the Red Terror of the French Revolution would be better? 132.205.45.110 19:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom (or redirect). David Kernow 03:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete TexasAndroid 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant to Category:Professional wrestling venues ProveIt (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Capitalization. siafu 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete TexasAndroid 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator ProveIt (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CategoryRedirect to Category:Inflorescence vegetables, or keep as a subcategory of Category:Inflorescence vegetables. 132.205.45.110 19:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant to Category:Rosenborg B.K. players ProveIt (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant to Category:Railway stations in East Renfrewshire ProveIt (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by creator ProveIt (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete TexasAndroid 20:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
inexplicable ProveIt (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 19:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to clarify. For the same reasons that we just renamed the pre-Union English MPs and Scottish MPs categories. Mais oui! 13:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization fix. Kirill Lokshin 01:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Moved from Speedy due to objection. - TexasAndroid 13:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- object; the small i is less commonly used, Wars of Independence is a stock phrase, and should be capitalized. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support Individual wars are proper nouns but classes of war are not. CalJW 04:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename Bhoeble 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per CalJW. Valiantis 14:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as above. David Kernow 03:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Wikipedia standards. Usgnus 20:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom & CalJW. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 22:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have been created specifically for two people (its sole inhabitants at the moment), but the term "Canadian Briton" is a neologism (indeed, "Briton" is used only for the ancient inhabitants of the British Islaes and by newspapers who need to conserve space; it's not standard English for British people. It's not entirely clear what it means: Canadian-born British citizens? Canadians living in Britain? It at least needs renaming (though I don't know what to); my preference is for deletion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, sorry, I think you're wrong; "Briton" is very commonly used in the media to refer to citizens of (and, implicitly, I suppose, persons with indefinite leave to remain in) the United Kingdom. On that basis, I think it should remain; on seeing it here, I understood it to mean Canadian-born British citizens... James F. (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Rename. "Britons" to (also) refer to modern British people is common - for instance, "Asian-Britons" (-wikipedia) get 1080 yahoo search hits, whereas "Asian British people" (-wikipedia) gets 342 hits. ex-pat Canadians who merely reside in the U.K. are not British and to include them here would be wrong regardless of what name you use here. perhaps a sub-cat for "Britons (or British) of Canadian descent" should be used to distinguish between Canadian-born Britons" and second generation British of Canadian descent. A rename should likely be Category:Canadian British people Mayumashu 14:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is not common practice in the UK to refer to "hyphenated Britons". This is a US practice and I see no reason to import it artificially via Wikipedia. The specific term "Canadian Britons" is a neologism. FWIW, "Britons" is a perfectly valid word to refer to people from Great Britain, but it is not the word used in cat names for people who are citizens of the UK. (The category is Category:British people). There are a variety of reasons for this, not least of which is that the UK does not only include Great Britain. The term "British" describes a legal nationality that applies to all citizens of the UK. Valiantis 14:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Valiantis CalJW 08:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is not very clear what this category is meant to be. --Mais oui! 10:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Murderers of children. the wub "?!" 22:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting change to a more legally sounding and less emotive description. -- Longhair 05:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this meant to people convicted of murdering whilst children, or of perpertrating the murders on children? If the former, how about "convicted murderous children"; if the latter, how about "Murders convicted of killing children". James F. (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the latter according the the text at the top. ×Meegs 12:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Murders convicted of killing children as James suggested. I'm not sure I like this subcategorization to begin with — I'm also open to deleting it — but the new name certainly an improvement. The convicted criterion is a mixed bag, though: it's a more clearly defined set of people, but also might exclude some of the category's current members. ×Meegs 12:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Murderers of children per Bhoeble (below) is also an improvement and works for me too. ×Meegs 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The emphasis on conviction is too modern. At many times and places there wasn't a formal conviction procedure, and even where there is one, some may have died before conviction. However it could be renamed category:Murderers of children to address the lack of clarity. Bhoeble 13:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Bhoeble --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename category:Murderers of children per Bhoeble. Sumahoy 23:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Murderers of children per Bhoeble. -choster 13:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Bhoeble. siafu 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Murderers of children. Longhair's suggestion does nothing to help the ambiguity, and the point about the ones that never got convicted, per se, is well taken. — Apr. 12, '06 [13:20] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge into Category:Foreigners in China. the wub "?!" 22:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. too POV and unnecessary - there s already Category:Foreigners in China who by definition are residents, not citizens (or they could not be described as 'foreigners') Mayumashu 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge into Category:Foreigners in China per nom. The extra words are POV and unnecessary, respectively.×Meegs 07:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, yes. James F. (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Foreigners in China Bhoeble 13:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Foreigners in China per nom. Sumahoy 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. If they're not already well-known (i.e., notable) then they won't have wikipedia articles in the first place. siafu 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete TexasAndroid 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category contains no articles and appears to be intended for advertising purposes. Delete. --Metropolitan90 03:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it currently stands. James F. (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 13:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
April 9
- 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. - TexasAndroid 19:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entries in this category have been manually moved to Category:Stampede Wrestling alumni, rendering the original category redundant. McPhail 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as requested. Nathcer 03:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
subcategories of Category:Computer vision
- 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. - TexasAndroid 14:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following are badly named and need renaming:
- Category:Computer vision/Software → Category:Computer vision software
- Category:Computer vision/Optics → Category:Computer vision optics
- Category:Computer vision/People → Category:Computer vision people
- Category:Computer vision/Commercial systems → Category:Computer vision commercial systems
- Category:Computer vision/Applications → Category:Computer vision applications
im not totally happy with the new names so any suggestions are welcome, but they definately need changing from whats there now. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom, except how about making /people into Category:Computer vision researchers? ×Meegs 12:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support all three of David Kernow's suggest exceptions below. ×Meegs 00:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom, including the people category. "People" allows the inclusion of executives. Sumahoy 23:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom, except:
- Category:Computer vision/People → Category:Computer vision researchers, as I don't believe there are many people associated with computer vision whose notability is not research-based;
- Category:Computer vision/Commercial systems → Category:Commercial computer vision systems;
- Category:Computer vision/Applications → Category:Applications of computer vision, assuming "applications" does not overlap with "software".
- David Kernow 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer davids suggestions to my own... unfortunately someones gone ahead and changed the catagories while the debate was still going on (not me). and they did it by copy and paste instead of move :/. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge. - TexasAndroid 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unneccessary delinieation by subgenre. Until I just added a catmore template there wasn't even any description of what on earth "Bongo Flava" is. Bongo Flava is itself a mere redirect to Tanzanian hip hop, which says that "fusion is sometimes called Bongo Flava" (my emphasis). The hip hop by nation categories are already way too deep and underpopulated so this to me is a very clear merge candidate. kingboyk 18:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as suggested. Easier to understand. Nathcer 03:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as suggested.--Urthogie 15:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies to Category:British MPs
- Merge Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Ireland constituencies to Category:British MPs
- Merge Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies to Category:British MPs
- Merge Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Welsh constituencies to Category:British MPs
All four newly created today - articles were previously in Category:British MPs. MPs are elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom on equal terms. I see no clear reason to subdivide them by the nation in which their constituency lies. Also the new names are horrendously long! Action appears to be unilateral on the part of the editor who made the change despite there being no consensus as per the ongoing discussion on whether to divide and/or rename this cat. (See Category talk:British MPs). Valiantis 18:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note that Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Irish constituencies (1801-1922) has not been included in this nomination. Bhoeble 14:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is important to note that although this debate is headed "Merge", it is in fact a vote to delete these four categories. It is also important to note that all four are already sub-categories of Category:British MPs. --Mais oui! 17:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)#[reply]
- All merges involve putting the content of a category into another category, often a parent category. Therefore the nominator has done nothing misleading whatsoever. Bhoeble 23:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say that they were trying to mislead anybody. Like you, I was merely clarifying what is being proposed here, because it was clear from User comments that people did not realise that these new categories are additions to Category:British MPs, and are not replacements. --Mais oui! 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Effectively they are replacements as all articles in Category:British MPs can potentially be added to one of these subcats. In effect, Category:British MPs will cease to exist except as a holding cat; the cats that will show at the bottom of individual articles will be these subcats, not Category:British MPs. Valiantis 19:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say that they were trying to mislead anybody. Like you, I was merely clarifying what is being proposed here, because it was clear from User comments that people did not realise that these new categories are additions to Category:British MPs, and are not replacements. --Mais oui! 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge then everyone should discuss possible divisions at Category talk:British MPs before making future changes, if any. The current names are too long and inconsistent anyway, and there is no category for pre-1921 Irish MPs. JRawle (Talk) 18:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- JRawle - according to a comment above yours, there is, in fact, a category for pre-1921 Irish MPs: Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Irish constituencies (1801-1922) --Mal 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge but rename. Since the category (rather unhelpfully) seems to contain MPs from all time ("This is a category listing current and former Members of the United Kingdom House of Commons") it could grow to many thousands of entries. "MPs are elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom on equal terms" is utterly irrelevant - this isn't politics, it's a Wikipedia CSD. Does it make navigational and organisational sense to subcategorise British MPs? Yes, I'd say so. Is subcategorising them by state a decent solution? Well, it's not the only way but it will suffice (by era or Party are other options). Rename to English MPs, Northern Irish MPs, Scottish MPs, Welsh MPs. --kingboyk 18:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As per my vote below, I think this is the most sensible option. There are other categories into which these politicians can be listed (era, party etc, as Kingboyk suggests) - and they should also be created: there is no reason why subcategories which cross reference should not be created. In fact they can be helpful to the user when looking for specific information. --Mal 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I don't think "English MPs, Northern Irish MPs" etc is useful. It could cause confusion of whether we are talking about the nationality of the MP, or the location of their constituency. At least the current title is clear. Astrotrain 18:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, those category names are out of the question. Bhoeble 14:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with the rationale and strongly disagree they are "out of the question". Category names should be concise, and any technicalities (such as "this category contains articles about MPS whose constituencies are or were in England") can be covered in the text of the category page. All that said, there are other ways of subcategorising which I might approve of, such as by Party or century. --kingboyk 18:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge for now - some kind of split would probably be useful, but should be discussed and agreed upon first -- AJR | Talk 02:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge for now per nom. CalJW 02:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and rename to Category:Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom. it s become standard policy across the encyclopedia to spell-out initialisms in cat page names Mayumashu 04:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator all back into "British MPs", but it does indeed need a better name. It cannot be renamed to "Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom", because it's actually "Members of the lower Houses of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the United Kingdom of Great Britiain and Ireland, of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland". In short. And that's, err, a tad too long. :-) James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Merge, but Rename the Northern Irish category to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Irish constituencies. These catergories are named in line with other similar categories, see:
- Admittedly the new names are long, but as User:Astrotrain says, at least they are clear. It is very hard indeed to know how they could be renamed without obscuring what they are.
- I note that another new subcategory to British MPs is underway too, see Category:British female MPs. --Mais oui! 11:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that female MPs should still be listed in the main Category:British MPs (or whatever subdivisions are decided on) as per Wikipedia guidelines:
- For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category
- A similar discussion is taking place about female life peers JRawle (Talk) 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Merge The new categories are useful and pertinent imo. An Siarach
- Oppose Merge New categories are natural and helpful subcategories; might be better classifying current MPs and past MPs separately. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge. People elected MPs in Ireland from 1801 are Irish MPs elected to the United Kingdom parliament. They were not British MPs. Westminister was the parliament of the UK of Great Britain and Ireland. While English/Scottish/Welsh MPs can be labelled as British, this is not possible for MPs elected in Ireland. They were born in Ireland, socialised in Ireland and (most) described themselves as Irish. Whatever the case, an Irish category would feature as a subcategory of the categories British MPs and Irish politicians. --Damac 13:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- This is ignoring the fact that one can be both British and Irish, just as one can be both British and English .. etc. --Mal 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom The above point is irrelevant as Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Irish constituencies (1801-1922) has not been included. It is highly POV to categorise MPs by the location of their constituencies as Parliament operates primarily on party lines not national lines and cross categorising both attributes would be cumbersome and generally undesirable. Bhoeble 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see the merits of that argument. MPs of Sinn Fein are British MPs, but would thoroughly object to being called "British". At any rate, these categories are merely sub-categories, not replacements. The four-fold country divide in the Commons makes perfect sense, especially in the context of the West Lothian question, and are besides not alternatives to the British MPs category, but merely subcategories. If MPs were sorted by nationality, then I'd be against it, but by country constituency makes perfect sense, and I'm not sure I understand why anyone would oppose such a sensible thing. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether Sinn Féin like it or not, they are still British MPs. What you have described is their particular viewpoint, but an encyclopedia should deal in the facts. Considering that Sinn Féin (and also the Workers' Party) also campaign for election in the Republic of Ireland, they should be categorised additionally and separately as MPs of the RoI, if they aren't already. --Mal 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The may object, but in normal English usage "British" is the adjective for the UK. If these categories aren't merged I will start categories by party to reduce the clear bias towards nationalist priorities that this system creates, but I really don't want to do that. Bhoeble 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Subcategories by party also seems very obvious, desirable and useful, and I am very surprised that these have not been started long ago. --Mais oui! 14:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't done because all politicians are classified by party. That was a good straightforward system: classification by party and classification by role. What we have now is a (biased) hideous mess by comparison and I fear it will get worse with further subcategorisation. But it is a systemic failing of Wikipedia that things like categorisation tend to be taken too far and it is a lot harder to reverse excess than to commit it. Bhoeble 23:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Subcategories by party also seems very obvious, desirable and useful, and I am very surprised that these have not been started long ago. --Mais oui! 14:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The may object, but in normal English usage "British" is the adjective for the UK. If these categories aren't merged I will start categories by party to reduce the clear bias towards nationalist priorities that this system creates, but I really don't want to do that. Bhoeble 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Merge, especially for Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Ireland constituencies to Category:British MPs. Westminister is the parliament of the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. British MPs come from Britain, United Kingdom MPs come from the United Kingdom. Britain and United Kingdom are not synonymous.--Damac 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The given nationality of everyone from the United Kingdom is British. British MPs do not only come from the island of Britain. --Mal 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has said they are, but British is the adjective for the UK. The English language is full of irregularties. Bhoeble 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect Bhoeble, Damac said this very thing above my comment to him: "British MPs come from Britain" --Mal 09:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has said they are, but British is the adjective for the UK. The English language is full of irregularties. Bhoeble 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, there are categories and subcategories for Category:British_people, even though they all hold the same passports. Why should this category on MPs be any different?--Damac 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they are all members of one institution and the category is for that institution. It is not an occupational category. Bhoeble 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We could eaisly find a different category system:
- Category:British MPs who have had an affair with their secetaries
- Category:British MPs who go badger spotting in well known gay sex cruising zones
- Category:British MPs who think forget they are actually supposed to be politicans and instead spend most of their time appearing on panel gameshows and reality TV shows Astrotrain 14:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Merge British MPs is far too woolly a cat name and potentially vast; division by party will be as arbitrary and is workable only for a minority of all MPs; division by country seems clear-cut by comparison. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you mean by saying division by party is arbitary. Are you in any doubt which party say, Margaret Thatcher belonged to? Do you think there will be heated disagreements about the party affliation of Harold Wilson? Bhoeble 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting at A in Category:British MPs, what party did James Abercromby, 1st Baron Dunfermline belong to, or William Adam (MP), or Joseph Addison, and what would your source be ? Which country the constituency they sat for was in is, on the other hand, verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you mean by saying division by party is arbitary. Are you in any doubt which party say, Margaret Thatcher belonged to? Do you think there will be heated disagreements about the party affliation of Harold Wilson? Bhoeble 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge, bring back Category:British MPs. The point of categories is to bring similar people together. This defeats that. Why send Enoch Powell×2 or Ramsay MacDonald×3 all over the place? --Henrygb 16:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm... Category:British MPs never went anywhere! Please note that these four new categories are all subcategories of Category:British MPs (and they all have been from their very start). --Mais oui! 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge and rename as per Kingboyk and others. As Mais Oui pointed out to me, there is no need to delete these new categories, nor to undermine the work done on them. Categories are very useful for research purposes - they help to improve the encyclopedia. There is no reason why these cats cannot co-exist with other categories that have been suggested. --Mal 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are these particular categories useful. I think they are disruptive and misleading. Bhoeble 23:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way are they "disruptive"? Similarly, in what way are they "misleading"? --Mal 09:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are these particular categories useful. I think they are disruptive and misleading. Bhoeble 23:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge The category restructuring is a sensible start but needs to go further. Oppose renaming to "English MPs", "Northern Irish MPs" etc which would be confusing. OK, the current names are long, but they are accurate. British MPs should be renamed to United Kingdom Members of Parliament then sub-categorised into current and former, each of which should be sub-categorised into the four constituency components. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? No-one seems to have given a single reason why it is worthwhile to subdivide members of the unitary parliament of the United Kingdom into groups dependent on which of the "home nations" their constituency is based in. Valiantis 19:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge. The new categories are clumsily named, and this unlateral move short-circuits an ongoing discussion on Category talk:British MPs. As per the discussion there, I am in favour of sub-categorisation, but not in this way. --BrownHairedGirl 16:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Merge These categories are just gowing to grow and grow. It makes perfect sense to at least subdivide the British MPs category. There are over 100 articles in the Scottish section alone. The titles are long, but they are accurate. An over-category of British MPs is fine, but there's no reason to delete these developed categories. Canaen 07:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not unreasonable to subdivide the cat; the issue is the way it has been subdivided which I consider supports a POV. If the idea is to have reasonably sized cats then a split into former and current MPs should be the starting point. If the 650 or so MPs this would leave in the current cat is too big (and this is in fact the debatable - these is no requirement to split cats just because they fill more than one page), then splitting them on English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish lines does not address the problem as the vast majority of current MPs come from England. If they are split on geographical lines for reasons of cat size only then one might more logically divide them into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, North East England, North West England, Yorkshire and the Humber, West Midlands, East Midlands, South West England, South East England, East of England and Greater London. This would create subcats of roughly equal size and emphasise that the division is essentially geographical and not the POV national-political division which the current split implies. (This is not my preferred option, I think a current MPs cat of circa 650 members is entirely reasonable). As for the "development" of the cats, they were only created on 9 April, as I reported in my intial proposal, they are well populated as the creator spent a lot of time populating them. This was the unilateral action of one individual, however well-intentioned, and does not reflect the discussions that have taken place on this issue in Category talk:British MPs. Valiantis 14:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything POV; you'll need to explain that. Because you perceive these innocent cats to be POV, my instinct is that you yourself are POV, and take some kind of ideological offense to them. I'm sorry if that's the case, but the cats are totally neutral, and are the most reasonable way of sub-categorizing anything under a UK cat. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- whilst both Scotland and England have always had seperate constituencies, and obviously Ireland and Northern Ireland have; has there been any times when a constituency was in both England and Wales? Astrotrain 17:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to Calgacus I believe I explained why I consider these POV in my initial proposal (which is one of the two main reasons I nominated these, the other being that they were created without regard to an ongoing attempt to reach consensus on the best way to subcat this area). I will however state this at more length. The Parliament of the United Kingdom is a unitary body; people are not elected on the basis of which "home nation" they are from. If this cat scheme is a purely geographic division to make category sizes more manageable then it fails miserably as the vast majority (529 out of 646) of constituencies in the UK are in England and the English cat will consequently still be unwieldy. There is, however, nothing inherently "neutral" about emphasising the division of the UK into England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. If you believe there is, then you appear to have a poor grasp of British cultural politics. Both dividing UK cats into separate subcats for E,S, NI & W and not dividing UK cats could be perceived as POV. The only reasonable basis for proceeding therefore is to examine whether the division of the UK is germane to the subject matter in hand. So, for instance, local government in the UK is organised differently in the four "home nations" and the cats relating to this are rightly subdivided into subcats by home nation. Parliament is a unitary organisation, so such a division is not germane and thus implies a POV about the relationship between the union and the nations, whether this was the intention of the category's creator or not. You will note, BTW, that unlike your attack on my motives, I have already stated my assumption of good faith on the part of the person who created the category. FWIW, I think my "voting" on CFD demonstrates that I have supported subcategorisation by home nation when germane and opposed it when not germane to the subject matter. Valiantis 16:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was "questioning your motives" because in general my experience tells me that most people who bandy around the tag POV when it is not obvious are themselves "POV", being influenced by some kind of emotional sensitivy of some kind stemming from their ideological inclinations. But, Valiantis, don't get offended, I'm not saying you are of this type. If categories are geographical, the divisions Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland make sense, it just remains to recategorize England in equivalent sized divisions. Road Wizard summed it up really, and I'm afraid I don't buy the idea that the civil servants who created that webpage were POV pushing. There are a number of much more obvious and likely conclusions than that. Ultimately, the United Kingdom consists of three constituent nations and one constituent territory, and everything about the UK will always be categorized according to that. This is just logic, it ain't POV pushing. This seems to be the ultimate flaw in your case. On the other hand, suggesting the UK's historical and constitutional national divisions should be ignored seems more counter-intuitive and reeks more of POV pushing that the opposite. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly it's not "logic" to divide all UK categories into 4 subcats for E,S,W & NI; there is nothing logical about national boundaries. As I said, to do this is political and not to do so is also political which is why I support division into home nation subcats or not dependent on the subject-matter. Your comments imply that you believe it is appropriate to divide all UK cats into 4 subcats. This is clearly at odds with general WP practice with regard to other countries (all German subcats are not automatically divided by Bundesland, Belgian cats are not automatically divided into Flemish and Walloon subcats etc.) which is a precedent that should be taken into account. (This practice itself is of course a POV which supports the sovereign state over other ways of dividing up humanity; however, there has to be some method and this is the one WP uses). There does however appear to be a trend currently that all UK cats are being divided on home nations grounds whether this is germane to the subject-matter or not. This action appears to be the work of a small number of editors and to be proceeding without discussion (as is the case with the cats under discussion here). Once created such cats tend to stay as it only takes one person to create a cat but it takes a supermajority of all those voicing an opinion to delete it. It seems to me that it is the lack of discussion - particularly when it involves ignoring a discussion that is ongoing as applies here - that it particularly galling. Valiantis 00:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was "questioning your motives" because in general my experience tells me that most people who bandy around the tag POV when it is not obvious are themselves "POV", being influenced by some kind of emotional sensitivy of some kind stemming from their ideological inclinations. But, Valiantis, don't get offended, I'm not saying you are of this type. If categories are geographical, the divisions Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland make sense, it just remains to recategorize England in equivalent sized divisions. Road Wizard summed it up really, and I'm afraid I don't buy the idea that the civil servants who created that webpage were POV pushing. There are a number of much more obvious and likely conclusions than that. Ultimately, the United Kingdom consists of three constituent nations and one constituent territory, and everything about the UK will always be categorized according to that. This is just logic, it ain't POV pushing. This seems to be the ultimate flaw in your case. On the other hand, suggesting the UK's historical and constitutional national divisions should be ignored seems more counter-intuitive and reeks more of POV pushing that the opposite. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - would a temporal categorization be sounder? It would be NPOV (and practically helpful) to categorize MPs by which parliaments they sat in, would it not? Some MPs sat in a lot of parliaments so there is the risk of category clutter, but by and large it seems a more elegant solution. Each subcategory would be of very similar - and navigable -size, and MPs would be sorted with their contemporaries. TheGrappler 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The UK Parliament itself breaks its current membership down into several categories. MPs by Constituency sorted Alphabetically; MPs by Counties (but first split into England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland); MPs by Gender & MPs by Party. As the Parliament sets these categories itself, any wiki categorisation based on them would have to be NPOV. Road Wizard 22:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid as a general rule it doesn't follow that because institution X states something it is therefore NPOV. Also, the division you state is by "county and unitary authority" not explicitly by home nation; the lists appear to be broken down into the home nations but in fact they are broken into six lists: - London Boroughs, English shire counties, English metropolitan districts, Scottish unitary authorities, Welsh unitary authorities and NI districts i.e. into the six different sorts of local authority in the UK.
- Oppose merge Very useful subdivision of a very large category. SP-KP 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and inappropriate. Circeus 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - All Digimon have both genders. Plau 15:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While some digimon display female characteristics Digimon are generally considered genderless, and a digimon type is essentially a species anyway so as Plau said, there could conceivable be multiple genders, therefore category is meaningless. Shiroi Hane 02:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Digimon are genderless, as above. Jedi Amara 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category only contains three articles, all of which are lists of weapons. It's doubtful that the individual weapons should be broken out into separate articles any time soon, so the three lists could just be put in Category:Halo 2 and Category:Computer and video game weapons. — TKD::Talk 14:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, many in category are not buildings. Better suited to a single list article JBellis 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not an important attribute of the buildings. Bhoeble 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify. mattbr30 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and mention in the Legoland Windsor article. --kingboyk 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify in the [Legoland Windsor]] article. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but mention in both the [Legoland Windsor]] article and the articles for the buildings themselves. SP-KP 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Mais oui! 03:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was discussion already completed. - EurekaLott 13:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completing existing CfR process from 30 March (has there been a vote elsewhere I can't find?). I support this change for consitency with Category:Members of the pre-1707 English Parliament and to avoid confusion with current UK MPs for Scottish constituencies. Mtiedemann 11:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The vote was completed and the decision was to rename. - EurekaLott 13:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Australian Rules categories
- 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. - TexasAndroid 15:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Australian Rules football grounds to Category:Australian rules football grounds
- Category:Australian Rules footballers to Category:Australian rules footballers
- Category:Australian Rules coaches to Category:Australian rules football coaches
The term 'Australian Rules' is incorrect capitalisation. Remy B 10:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Category:Australian Rules coaches and Category:Australian Rules footballers are also now tagged for renaming, that is the removal of the capital Rs. Bhoeble 14:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support. I'm no expert on this, so if there's an Australian who thinks it should be capitalized, then I buy that. But if this is changed, then category:Australian Rules footballers and category:Australian Rules coaches should also change.--Mike Selinker 17:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree, they should also be renamed. Remy B 18:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As a further clarification, Australian Rules football redirects to Australian rules football, which demonstrates the correct capitalisation. Remy B 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no expertise here, but support matching the article name. For what it's worth, newspapers using the term in Google news are pretty well split between ARF, ARf, and Arf. ×Meegs 07:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator. I have added the other categories. Bhoeble 14:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Remy. However while we're at consistency, I've changed the proposed move of Category:Australian Rules coaches to Category:Australian rules football coaches (why you would keep it as Australian rules coaches is not consistent at all). Rogerthat Talk 12:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yep good idea. Remy B 13:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, sounds great.--Mike Selinker 13:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yep good idea. Remy B 13:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An empty category, and one whose criteria is difficult to judge. Better to use the subcategories of category:Cancer deaths.--Mike Selinker 08:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & use cancer cats. There's no way to be sure that smoking was the cause of any individual's death. ×Meegs 08:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not sufficiently verifiable. Bhoeble 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge. - TexasAndroid 15:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant to Category:Villages in Cumbria
- merge as per nom. Bhoeble 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge. - TexasAndroid 15:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant to Category:São Paulo Futebol Clube players
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 15:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator, though this is getting to the point where we say "use English 'translation' over original name". James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. - TexasAndroid 15:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming this category adds relevance and makes the topic more interesting. All articles about fires at Wikipedia should have historical significance. GilliamJF 05:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as nom GilliamJF 05:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Since events included in the category are notable, the modifier adds nothing meaningful to the name. The reverse renaming took place in September. - EurekaLott 18:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per EurekaLott. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per EurekaLott. Bhoeble 14:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The nominator rightly states "All articles about fires at Wikipedia should have historical significance". Therefore the word "historical" is understood anyway. Same applies to all WP cats. Valiantis 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Take no action. Let AfD decide which ones are of historical significance. — Apr. 12, '06 [13:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- 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. - TexasAndroid 15:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(a) shorter (shock horror); (b) not all members of this category are persons. Cf also Category:Counter-revolutionaries. David Kernow 05:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as nom. David Kernow 05:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator. Sumahoy 23:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant, spelling counts -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. David Kernow 05:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. David Kernow 05:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The correct form is Category:Ice hockey in Spain. Bhoeble 15:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. David Kernow 05:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by User:Ccwaters -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. David Kernow 05:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like it was replaced by category:Utah Grizzlies (IHL) players, which is fine. I created the original category, and I'm fine with this.--Mike Selinker 07:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 15:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Bhoeble 15:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I dunno. Do we have a list for this? Possibly information worth having. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; I agree it's interesting ... if someone wants to populate it, I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination -- ProveIt (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as made redundant by Category:Victims of The Night of the Long Knives (correct capitalisation?). David Kernow 01:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there's a night of the long knives in Canadian politics... 70.51.11.101 00:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by User:Cursive -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first of these categories was previously listed in Category:Elections by country which was POV because the EU is not a country. It should be renamed Category:European Parliament elections, which describes its purpose accurately. However Category:European Parliament results also exists and I can't see that it is needed as well as the Category:European Parliament elections so it should be merged into Category:European Parliament elections as well. Some of the content will need to be moved, but that is the case anyway. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/merge per nom. David Kernow 05:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/merge per nom. Bhoeble 15:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/merge both to "Europenan Parliament elections results"; "European Parliament results" sounds like it could refer to the divisions and their outcomes. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both to Category:European Parliament elections per nom. Wikipedia's articles about elections are more than just lists of results, they also (hopefully) cover the election campaign and significance of the election. Sumahoy 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 15:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category of the category listed below and three categories that were listed yesterday. Grouping one or two sports by the names of bodies that most people have probably never heard of just isn't helpful. The Olympics articles are already grouped by sport, which the appropriate thing to do. Golfcam 03:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom Golfcam 03:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 15:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination makes a set with the other three listed below. Grouping one or two sports by the names of bodies that most people have probably never heard of just isn't helpful. The Olympics articles are already grouped by sport, which the appropriate thing to do. Golfcam 03:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom Golfcam 03:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 15:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 15:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one page in this category, and the category won't get bigger. ЄИЄЯפЇЄ 02:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
SupportOpps, I meant Delete This is from back when each individual AoM character had an article. However, they have been merged into a parent article, making this category redundant. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nom. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 15:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 15:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made redundant by Category:Buildings and structures in Bridgetown, the correctly named category -- Francs2000 01:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect, as category empty. David Kernow 05:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Bhoeble 15:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
April 8
- 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. - TexasAndroid 17:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite so vague. ProveIt (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. BoojiBoy 01:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. --Terence Ong 04:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. It would need clearer name even if its scope extended beyond the Olympics. ×Meegs 09:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Games should be capitalized. 132.205.45.110 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Currently the "Charter Schools" category has just eleven entries, and Georgia has one charter article. When we get more charter school articles, we can consider state-level categories. Charters are a small percentage of schools, and it will take a while before we have enough articles to warrant state-level categories. Rob 23:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep And will the article remain in Category:Education in Georgia (U.S. state) of not? This is a good example of why accurate cross categorisation is desirable; it greatly increases the chances of an article being in both the relevant hierarchies. CalJW 04:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused by your point. My primary point here is I want the school to appear directly in Category:Charter schools. That's a small category, and all charter schools should be there, without forcing people to visit each state to find all charter schools. Now, I thought if you have Category:Charter schools in Georgia (U.S. state), then wiki convention is that an article not appear in both parent and sub-category at the same time. Am I wrong about that? Also, do you feel there is enough charter schools to break them up between states/province? --Rob 06:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CalJW. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you support state/provincial level categories for all charter schools? Do you think individual schools should appear directly in the parent category; or both the parent and sub. --Rob 11:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The question may simply be, is it too early to have these subcats? One could make a good case that it is, that's why I'm undecided at this time. Vegaswikian 19:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you support state/provincial level categories for all charter schools? Do you think individual schools should appear directly in the parent category; or both the parent and sub. --Rob 11:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merged with another group -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by User:Sheep81 -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not so good -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV. Golfcam 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- POV? No, it's part of the Good Articles proposal, sort of a "halfway-to-featured" rating for articles. In any case, delete this unused cat, as it has been replaced with a new code feature. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is POV whether an article is good or not. This feature should be abolished. Bhoeble 15:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This category is redundant. There is already Category:Wikipedia good articles which is only used for talk pages. -- Samuel Wantman 07:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by User:Ccwaters -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant, blanked by User:Pikawil -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by User:Jalalarbil -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator after a merge. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy rename. -- Francs2000 22:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Should be Category:Classical trombonists (plural) -- Francs2000 22:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename CalJW 04:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename; ProveIt (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete, empty and will remain so (a1, a7). He:ah? 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Only article in the category has now been deleted through AFD twice and speedy deleted once as a repost. DMG413 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. - TexasAndroid 15:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicate Catagory. Full list can be found here Here -- YCCHAN 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Part of the effort to categorize Canadian alumni in Category:Alumni by university in Canada. - EurekaLott 21:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per EurekaLott. ×Meegs 08:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per EurekaLott. --Ardenn 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per EurekaLott. BoojiBoy 02:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per EurekaLott. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A category is not a duplicate of a list. Every other university with notable graduates has or will have an alumni category. People who become newly notable who are written up on their own merits can get the category tag sooner than an editor would bother to add them to the list. Etc. Samaritan 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
CHL alumni categories
- 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 no consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:OHL alumni -> Category:Ontario Hockey League players
- Category:WHL alumni -> Category:Western Hockey League players
- Category:QMJHL alumni -> Category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League players
+ all sub categories moved from "alumni" to "players" categories. Some examples include:
The standard for sports team players is to have have players (e.g. look at Category:Ice hockey players by league or Category:Basketball players). Also, the criteria noted in all of the "alumni" categories of having played in the National Hockey League is not necessary. -- JamesTeterenko 19:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this deletion. The unique purpose of the CHL and other junior leagues are to graduate players to higher levels. Junior teams are alma mater and part of the production sytem for professional players. Accordingly the categories should be called "Alumni". Flibirigit 19:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with Flibirigit. Oppose renaming. Ardenn 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this deletion also. The culture of the Canadian Hockey League is such that a team's alumni are a huge part of their history. Hockey players also tend to identify with the junior teams with which they played. BoojiBoy 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. The current structure makes it impossible to include a player who is currently playing for the CHL. You are not yet an alumnus if you're still playing. All other categories of sports figures use the term "players" regardless of whether one is currently or previously a player. So these should be no different.---Mike Selinker 21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Players who are currently playing in the CHL are not normally "Wikiworthy" unless a high "Draft Prospect." See dicsussion below. Flibirigit 17:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More discussion here. The consensus seems to be to leave the categories alone. BoojiBoy 21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/merge all per nom and previous discussion. - EurekaLott 21:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but you wouldn't call people who have graduated from Ohio State "Ohio State students", would you? The "alumni" tag is in widespread use in the CHL. I have a copy of the commemorative program issued by the Sault Greyhounds here and one article is entitled "Alumni playing in the NHL". Again, "alumni" is the word used by the CHL and the categories should reflect usage. Oppose. BoojiBoy 22:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit of a straw man, since Ohio State is a school and the Saginaw Spirit is not. I would be willing to bet that the word "players" is also used in the CHL. The Hamilton Steelhawks debate mentioned by EurekaLott seems like what we should follow here.--Mike Selinker 22:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the standard usage in the CHL is to refer to a player as an alumnus of that team once he graduates (and yes, they use the word "graduates" as well). I have provided one link that indicates that. You can also refer to http://www.londonjuniorknights.com/alumni.asp, http://www.londonknights.com/staff_dbrankley.asp, or any of the 264,000 hits given by searching for "London Knights alumni" in Google. And that's just one team of 59 in the CHL. I missed the Hamilton Steelhawks debate, but given that they are a defunct team, they have no "players" at present anyway. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its titles and categories should reflect current usage within the CHL itself, not an arbitrary standard. BoojiBoy 22:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I would say that arbitrary standards are quite useful for navigational purposes. Parallelism has its own merits.--Mike Selinker 04:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose renaming per Flibirigit et al. However, I agree with Mike's comment that the current structure makes it impossible to include current CHL players. Therefore, I propose
keeping "player" categories, and creating new cats as needed. —Dale Arnett 04:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Update: I also believe that each "players" category should include boilerplate indicating that only non-alumni of each team should be included, and that alumni can be found at the appropriate "alumni" category.[reply]
- Players who are currently playing in the CHL are not normally "Wikiworthy" unless a high "Draft Prospect." See dicsussion below. Flibirigit 17:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I understand that alumni is a common term used in the CHL, but this term is also used for former members of many other organizations. Note that the term means "former student of", not "graduate of". In the the first link BoojiBoy gives above, they don't use the term to necessarily mean that they have played in the NHL. If you scroll down the page, it shows players that have gone on to play in various leagues. I believe that having two player categories for every junior team does not add any more significant value than just having one category. If there really is consensus to have a category for players that have "graduated" to the NHL, I would suggest putting that in the category name. Maybe something like Category:NHL players who have played for the Red Deer Rebels. Okay, I don't really like that name, but at least it has the complete criterion within the name. -- JamesTeterenko 06:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename / merge all. Players is widespread throughout other sports and is used to hold both current and former players. At the least, there should be a players category for each team (possibly with subcats for alumni) to remain consistent with the other sports. I caution, that separating current players for former ones is a dated distinction and creates a need for maintainence that is not there with a combined category. ×Meegs 09:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposed to renaming and merging Flibirigit 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose to renaming, there are few instances where a CHL player is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. If the player is a hot prospect like Jordan Staal, that is usually the only usage of current players. Also, I am not opposed to players who have never made the NHL and our notable in another area to be put on these lists (ex. Peter DeBoer). However I would keep the name the same. Also another thought is if this gets changed to "players", it would generate a lot of confusion in the category sections of hockey bio articles, because the "players" thing is also used for players who have played on NHL, AHL, and IHL teams. If you were to throw CHL into there, it would be very hard to differentiate what leagues those teams are from. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only current CHL players that should have articles are those who are prospects to the NHL. Other CHL players are not deemed "Wikiworthy" and there shouldn't be articles for them. The two types of categories that should exist are:
- CHL Draft Prospects
- CHL Team Alumni
- Quote from ccwaters
Clarification: the guideline at WP:BIO states Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. So for hockey players, they are wiki notable if they have played professionally. Of course there are always exceptions like hot prospects (Jordan Staal, Phil Kessel, etc)... ccwaters 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I propose that the Alumni categories remain, and the Draft Prospects category be created Most current CHL players are not "Wikiworthy" and thus categorizing them is irrelevant. Flibirigit 03:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Flibirigit. BoojiBoy 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment by nominator:
There are currently three basic groups of people that have played in the CHL and have Wikipedia articles. They are:
- CHL players that have gone on to play in the NHL (e.g. Dion Phaneuf, Joe Sakic)
- CHL players that are expected to eventually play in the NHL (e.g. Justin Pogge, Jordan Staal)
- CHL players that have gone on to become notable for some other reason (e.g. Kaleb Toth, Peter DeBoer)
I think we all agree that a very high percentage of the CHL players with Wikipedia articles fall into the first group and most in the second group will eventually belong in the first group.
There is a very strong precedent for athelete categories to consistently be named "players" across professional and developmental leagues. Examples of developmental player categories include:
- Category:College baseball players
- Category:Minor league baseball players
- Category:College football players
- Category:High school football players
- Category:College basketball players
- Category:College ice hockey players
- Category:Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League players
I am fairly confident that most, if not all, of the organizations identified above call thier former players "alumni". I am not, in any way, questioning that this term is used in the CHL. I was not able to find any other athelete category other than the ones nominated that have "alumni" in the name. Considering many of these are for College players, they probably use the term "alumni" more often than in the CHL.
My basic reason for making this nomination was twofold:
- Make the categories for hockey players consistent with other sports in that all levels of play are labelled "players".
- Simplify the category so that all three groups of players noted above can share the same category. Since those in group #3 are quite small in number and those in group #2 will eventually be in group #1, I felt that one category would suffice. If there is really strong support to differentiate these, I could go along with it.
I am sorry that I didn't provide all of this detail in the original nomination. I really didn't think that there would be any significant opposition to this nomination. For those that have voted oppose, please consider changing your vote. I am not trying to undermine the significant effort that went into populating these categories in the first place. I want all of that work to remain. It is just that I strongly believe that we should have consistent category names for the same basic concept across all sports. -- JamesTeterenko 19:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I DISAGREE with the categories listed above. There are only two types of Categories.
- "CHL Propsects" (likely to be notable)
- "CHL Alumni" (who are notable)
(Players who have gone on to play in the NHL are really a subcategory of "CHL Alumni" that have become notable, same as Coaches, Builders, and players in other sports.) Flibirigit 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the decision is made to move it all to "players" I won't object per se. I believe that "alumni" is a far more accurate description of the players (i.e., you graduate from your CHL team and become an alumnus of them, and participate in alumni golf tournaments, etc.) I like Flibirigit's proposal of creating a "prospects" category, because who is to say whether or not there will always be any current "noteworthy" players on any particular CHL team? The current system will lead to the possibility of empty categories over time. As I say, if James Teterenko's motion is carried I will not object, provided the categories are maintained under whatever name. But I believe that Flibirigit's counter-proposal is the better one, and I cast my vote for it. (A further comment - if the decision is made to keep the categories as "alumni" then Category:Hamilton Steelhawks players will have to be moved back to "Hamilton Steelhawks alumni" for the sake of consistency.) BoojiBoy 19:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, what is going on over there in category:Ontario Hockey League players anyway? Many of the subcategories have duplicate categories for alumni under category:OHL alumni. Regardless of what happens on the nomination (and everybody's made it clear that they have good reasons for their opinions), let's make sure each player only appears in one category per team.--Mike Selinker 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The current description of the alumni categories states that it is only for players that have gone on to the NHL. I had categorized some of the existing articles and could not put them under the alumni category. For example, Steve Downie currently plays for the Peterborough Petes and used to play for the Windsor Spitfires. So, he is in Category:Peterborough Petes players and Category:Windsor Spitfires players. If you remove the criterion of having played in the NHL, you could now put him in Category:Windsor Spitfires alumni. He could not put in Category:Peterborough Petes alumni yet, because he still plays for them. The "alumni" categories are subcategories of the "players" categories. I would rather not have both the "player" and "alumni" categories, but that would require loosening the criteria and allowing current players in the category. -- JamesTeterenko 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alumni" as a term refers to any former player who once played for a junior team, regardless of NHL status. If the "alumni" categories say NHL-only they should be changed, because that was not their intent. (What about WHA players? Do they count?) BoojiBoy 21:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. If this deletion nomination fails, we can easily delete the NHL comment along with all of the deletion notices. -- JamesTeterenko 03:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken the liberty of redefining each of the major categories (OHL alumni et al.). Obviously I am not going to do it for all in case the nomination passes, but I have redefined the categories as "The following is a list of subcategories of notable former players who played for teams in the (whatever) Hockey League." This better describes the category's intent and deletes the problem of the NHL-only rule. (Besides, there were already players all over the categories who never played in the NHL, see Dave Simpson, for example.) BoojiBoy 14:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. I would personally just avoid the use of the word notable. It can be little contentious, see Wikipedia:Notability. If the person actually has a Wikipedia article that is not subject to deletion, then notability can be implied. If the deletion fails, I'll help clean up all of the alumni categories. -- JamesTeterenko 16:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure we can rewrite the definition to everyone's liking. BoojiBoy 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. I would personally just avoid the use of the word notable. It can be little contentious, see Wikipedia:Notability. If the person actually has a Wikipedia article that is not subject to deletion, then notability can be implied. If the deletion fails, I'll help clean up all of the alumni categories. -- JamesTeterenko 16:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken the liberty of redefining each of the major categories (OHL alumni et al.). Obviously I am not going to do it for all in case the nomination passes, but I have redefined the categories as "The following is a list of subcategories of notable former players who played for teams in the (whatever) Hockey League." This better describes the category's intent and deletes the problem of the NHL-only rule. (Besides, there were already players all over the categories who never played in the NHL, see Dave Simpson, for example.) BoojiBoy 14:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. If this deletion nomination fails, we can easily delete the NHL comment along with all of the deletion notices. -- JamesTeterenko 03:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alumni" as a term refers to any former player who once played for a junior team, regardless of NHL status. If the "alumni" categories say NHL-only they should be changed, because that was not their intent. (What about WHA players? Do they count?) BoojiBoy 21:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The current description of the alumni categories states that it is only for players that have gone on to the NHL. I had categorized some of the existing articles and could not put them under the alumni category. For example, Steve Downie currently plays for the Peterborough Petes and used to play for the Windsor Spitfires. So, he is in Category:Peterborough Petes players and Category:Windsor Spitfires players. If you remove the criterion of having played in the NHL, you could now put him in Category:Windsor Spitfires alumni. He could not put in Category:Peterborough Petes alumni yet, because he still plays for them. The "alumni" categories are subcategories of the "players" categories. I would rather not have both the "player" and "alumni" categories, but that would require loosening the criteria and allowing current players in the category. -- JamesTeterenko 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, what is going on over there in category:Ontario Hockey League players anyway? Many of the subcategories have duplicate categories for alumni under category:OHL alumni. Regardless of what happens on the nomination (and everybody's made it clear that they have good reasons for their opinions), let's make sure each player only appears in one category per team.--Mike Selinker 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/merge all. The categories do define as going to NHL. People who played for these teams may well be noteworthy for other reasons and have Wikipedia articles. Gene Nygaard 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Hip hop music merge to Category:Hip hop
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge. - TexasAndroid 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging in Hip Hop Culture category will need it's own separate merge proposal. - TexasAndroid 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially duplicate categories which appear to be causing confusion. I don't believe that the seperation between hip hop music and hip hop culture is valid; furthermore, there are inconsistencies such as Category:Hip hop labels being in Category:Hip hop and not Category:Hip hop music. --kingboyk 19:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 15:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep.You don't believe the seperation between hip hop music and culture is valid? Culture includes the music as well as the dancing and the feuds and the graffiti styles.--Urthogie 16:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a speedy keep mate because this is a good faith nomination and so far you're the only person advocating Keep! :) Without the music there would be no culture. My point is this: there is redundancy in the categories here and obviously confusion amongst editors (obvious because of the mess and inconsistencies.) I propose retaining Category:Hip hop culture as a subcategory of Category:Hip hop, but move everything from Category:Hip hop music into Category:Hip hop. It would help organisation and navigation, I'm sure of it. --kingboyk 16:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Youre suggesting that culture be a subcat of hip hop?? That makes absolutely no sense. "Hip hop" is a culture-- the music, which is the engine of the culture, is only part of it! The whole reason subcategories exist is because they're part of something. If your move were made, it would be saying "hip hop culture" was part of hip hop-- logically, that makes no sense. While this move is completely nonsensical and would serve only to confuse users and editors, I can confidently state that I would support a merge of hip hop culture into hip hop.--Urthogie 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My take, but it's not central, it's more down to where would readers and editors expect to find the articles: First came hip hop music, and then came a lifestyle based on that music. Is that not correct? Even if it isn't strictly correct within the genre, other editors have obviously not understood or anticipated there being a difference between "hip hop" and "hip hop music" because several hip hop music entries are in only the hip hop category and not in the hip hop music category. I think to the average person the *terms* "hip hop" and "hip hop music" are one and the same, except the latter is wordier. --kingboyk 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where you're coming from. Basically, what you're saying is that right now the category structure does not make sense to our intended audience. I agree. However, your suggestion is basically asking for a consensus that 2+2=5. As a compromise, how about we merge hip hop music AND culture into "hip hop" and get rid of those confusing categories? I would only support this merge if that merge were made as well.--Urthogie 09:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with that suggestion, if you think the "hip hop" category wouldn't be too cluttered, no problem at all. Thanks for working with me to try to find a solution, by the way, much appreciated. --kingboyk 12:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you agree with this compromise, could you close this CFD and restart a CFD for both of them to merge into "hip hop"? Thanks,--Urthogie 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you just list the new merge proposal as a seperate listing? Or add it to this one, if that's alright. I think it would be difficult to close this one early since it's generated a lot of comments? (I'm willing to close it, if other participants don't mind). --kingboyk 17:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think we need to delist this one, so that people are aware that something new is being suggested.--Urthogie 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you just list the new merge proposal as a seperate listing? Or add it to this one, if that's alright. I think it would be difficult to close this one early since it's generated a lot of comments? (I'm willing to close it, if other participants don't mind). --kingboyk 17:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you agree with this compromise, could you close this CFD and restart a CFD for both of them to merge into "hip hop"? Thanks,--Urthogie 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with that suggestion, if you think the "hip hop" category wouldn't be too cluttered, no problem at all. Thanks for working with me to try to find a solution, by the way, much appreciated. --kingboyk 12:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where you're coming from. Basically, what you're saying is that right now the category structure does not make sense to our intended audience. I agree. However, your suggestion is basically asking for a consensus that 2+2=5. As a compromise, how about we merge hip hop music AND culture into "hip hop" and get rid of those confusing categories? I would only support this merge if that merge were made as well.--Urthogie 09:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My take, but it's not central, it's more down to where would readers and editors expect to find the articles: First came hip hop music, and then came a lifestyle based on that music. Is that not correct? Even if it isn't strictly correct within the genre, other editors have obviously not understood or anticipated there being a difference between "hip hop" and "hip hop music" because several hip hop music entries are in only the hip hop category and not in the hip hop music category. I think to the average person the *terms* "hip hop" and "hip hop music" are one and the same, except the latter is wordier. --kingboyk 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Youre suggesting that culture be a subcat of hip hop?? That makes absolutely no sense. "Hip hop" is a culture-- the music, which is the engine of the culture, is only part of it! The whole reason subcategories exist is because they're part of something. If your move were made, it would be saying "hip hop culture" was part of hip hop-- logically, that makes no sense. While this move is completely nonsensical and would serve only to confuse users and editors, I can confidently state that I would support a merge of hip hop culture into hip hop.--Urthogie 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator, keep the "culture" sub-cat, though. The culture may be distinct, but is far-and-away the prime part. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? The music is part of the culture, not the other way around.--Urthogie 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see where you're coming from, but I think the extra category for "music" just causes confusion amongst non hardcore afficiniados as I've demonstrated above. I think if we deleted the culture category and left the music category, we'd still have the problem of people putting articles and subcats into the top level cat instead of into "hip hop music" because to yer average Joe they're the same thing. Furthermore, I think the hip hop categories are too deep. See e.g. Category:Punk (also a music and culture) which is rather more shallow and easier to navigate. --kingboyk 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you agree with this compromise, could you close this CFD and restart a CFD for both of them to merge into "hip hop"? Thanks.
- See my above reply...I think we can reach compromise.--Urthogie 09:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see where you're coming from, but I think the extra category for "music" just causes confusion amongst non hardcore afficiniados as I've demonstrated above. I think if we deleted the culture category and left the music category, we'd still have the problem of people putting articles and subcats into the top level cat instead of into "hip hop music" because to yer average Joe they're the same thing. Furthermore, I think the hip hop categories are too deep. See e.g. Category:Punk (also a music and culture) which is rather more shallow and easier to navigate. --kingboyk 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? The music is part of the culture, not the other way around.--Urthogie 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Uzbekistan categories
- 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. - TexasAndroid 15:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Uzbek art -> Category:Uzbekistani art
- Category:Uzbek artists -> Category:Uzbekistani artists
- Category:Uzbek athletes -> Category:Uzbekistani athletes
- Category:Uzbek boxers -> Category:Uzbekistani boxers
- Category:Uzbek chess players -> Category:Uzbekistani chess players
- Category:Uzbek culture -> Category:Uzbekistani culture
- Category:Uzbek cyclists -> Category:Uzbekistani cyclists
- Category:Uzbek figure skaters -> Category:Uzbekistani figure skaters
- Category:Uzbek footballers -> Category:Uzbekistani footballers
- Category:Uzbek freestyle skiers -> Category:Uzbekistani freestyle skiers
- Category:Uzbek gymnasts -> Category:Uzbekistani gymnasts
- Category:Uzbek judoka -> Category:Uzbekistani judoka
- Category:Uzbek martial artists -> Category:Uzbekistani martial artists
- Category:Uzbek music -> Category:Uzbekistani music
- Category:Uzbek people -> Category:Uzbekistani people
- Category:Uzbek politicians -> Category:Uzbekistani politicians
- Category:Uzbek society -> Category:Uzbekistani society
- Category:Uzbek sportspeople -> Category:Uzbekistani sportspeople
- Category:Uzbek sport wrestlers -> Category:Uzbekistani sport wrestlers
- Category:Uzbek tennis players -> Category:Uzbekistani tennis players
- Rename all. Uzbeks are an ethnic group, but not all citizens of Uzbekistan are ethnic Uzbeks. Many people in these categories are ethnic Russian, Armenian etc. This is exactly the same situation as with the "Kazakh/Kazakhstani" categories which were renamed a few months ago. - Darwinek 18:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. CalJW 04:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose better use category:Something of/in/from Uzbekistan - then this is clear forever. E.g. use Category:Music of Uzbekistan. Avoid adjectives for countries. What's the adjective for "Democratic Republic of the Congo"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In case of Uzbekistan, people categories should be "Fooian people". In the case of Music see Category:World music by region per standard form. DR Congo/R Congo and Dominica/Dominican Republic are special cases and therefore exception is applied here, for example Category:People of the Republic of the Congo, Category:Republic of the Congo politicians and so on. Adjectives doesn't apply here. - Darwinek 10:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- E.g. Category:German music is misleading, as is Category:German newspapers. Use countryname for country related stuff and you have easy going everwhere. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to submit a separate proposal to that effect. I think it makes sense, but its scope is far broader than what's voted upon in this particular CFD, and as such it will need to be considered independently.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Mayumashu 12:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Nathcer 03:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 17:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strict count is 20-D, 13-K, 1-List, with 5 additional Keeps invalidated.
Inherently POV category that brings many unresolvable disputes. (While disputes are not themselves reasons to delete a category, I think the fact that these particular disputes are unresolvable is a reason to.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to the absence of objective criteria for inclusion. Also, for example, some might consider Tom Cruise to be a gay icon, and he might even be one, I don't know, but I doubt he'd take kindly to such labeling. — Apr. 8, '06 [19:16] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Since when is it a requirement of a Wikipedia biography that the subject "take kindly" to the way they are described? --TreyHarris 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that Tom Cruise's opinion matters here, but he'd probably already know that he was a gay icon, if he was one. We wouldn't be telling him anything he didn't already know. But, because being a gay icon does not necessarily call a person's sexuality into question - gay icons are often not gay - he may have no problem with it. Rossrs 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Valiantis 00:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Don't make this a list, don't make it an article, just get it off this wiki. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It already is an article; see gay icon. --TreyHarris 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't mean there shouldn't be an article on what a gay icon is. I just don't want yet another iteration of this POV list of who is a gay icon, in any form whatsoever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It already is an article; see gay icon. --TreyHarris 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't categorise people by who their fans are - reliable data is in short supply. Golfcam 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you just conjecturing that reliable data is in short supply, or do you have evidence to back the assertion up? Would coverage in gay press, outreach by the individuals to the gay community, etc., not be considered reliable to you? --TreyHarris 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This category is indefensibly biased and promotional. CalJW 04:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is it biased? How is it promotional? --TreyHarris 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Imprecise and unencyclopedic. Hawkestone 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This is no more or less imprecise or encyclopedic than other subcategories of Category:Celebrities. The category makes no allegations about the subject's sexuality; it merely states that the subject is a celebrity with a large following in the gay community. What are the "objective criteria" for including an article in Category:Celebrities? Point me at them, and I'll drop my objection. There are people, such as Bette Midler and Barbra Streisand, whose primary identification among a large fraction of the population is in their statuses as gay icons. --TreyHarris 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Another category is more POV" is not a valid reason to keep. If you believe that Category:Celebrities should go, propose it for deletion. --Nlu (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a violation of WP:POINT. Don't bait me to violate Wikipedia policy. --TreyHarris 06:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Another category is more POV" is not a valid reason to keep. If you believe that Category:Celebrities should go, propose it for deletion. --Nlu (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and make into a list. This was considered previously at CFD in July 2005 and twice in 2004. My view has not changed. This would be better served with a list. I created such a list at one point, and the list was deleted, and the category was kept. -- Samuel Wantman 06:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If I recall correctly, there was an AFD about the list of gay icons, and the consensus was at the time to make it a category instead. Just like with the list about people with bipolar disorder, people can be placed in the category if there is a source, especially if it's obvious that a list is out of the question to create. Mike H. That's hot 07:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you provide a source that someone is a gay icon? Surely, a person being a gay icon is inherently a matter of opinion. Even if lots of people think it, it is still just an opinion. Valiantis 19:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But if the opinion is documented that's a different story. We know Alfred Hitchcock was a good film maker because a lot of people think so, and that's nothing more than a lot of opinions. We accept it because it's a widely held view, and it's documented. We must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, but sourcing that someone is widely regarded as a gay icon is not difficult especially for the more "high profile" icons, and if an opinion is widely held, it's even easier to source because there will be a lot of written material. It's often documented in biographies and even more often in interviews. For example, in the article Kylie Minogue, an interview is quoted in which she says flat out that she knows she's a gay icon, why she believes she became regarded as such, and something like "my gay fans have always been with me". The quote is sourced and attributed in the article. She's a gay icon - it's verified to the same degree Wikipedia expects all information to be verified. Similarly, other high profile people Madonna, Judy Garland, Bette Midler, Barbra Streisand etc are documented as being gay icons. It would not be difficult to find a legitimate source for any of these people. And if a source can't be found, then it suggests that the claim is flimsy and should not be included here. Same as other information we use here - acceptable with a verifiable source, unacceptable without. Rossrs 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you provide a source that someone is a celebrity of any kind? You note their coverage in the contemporary press, in books, in memorabilia sales, etc. The same is true of gay icons, you just use the gay press, gay-oriented books, sales of memorabilia targeted to gays, etc. We've gone through the process of identity-oriented, especially gay-oriented, category deletion again and again, and the same POV arguments come up, but yet no one makes an attempt to delete the supercategories, because they intrinsically understand that there is such a thing as, for instance, a celebrity, even if they can't objectively quantify the criteria. --TreyHarris 20:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By definition all people with articles on WP are "notable". The cat "Celebrity" might be for people who are famous, but there are ample cats to include people on the basis of what they do e.g. famous actors get listed in the actors' cats, famous singers in the singers' cats. This leaves Category:Celebrities for people who are "famous for being famous". As per the cat description Category:Celebrities should only be used for articles that "do not fit into another occupational category". It follows therefore that nothing should be included in a subcat of "Celebrities" that can better be placed in another occupational category. Looking at the articles in Category:Gay icons it is clear that most if not all could be included in another occupational category. This would leave Category:Gay icons for people who are "famous for being famous" and who are popular with gay people (it is of course a sign of this cat's POV that it assumes all gay people have similar tastes!!). That such people are famous (even if it's not quite clear what for) is quantifiably demonstrable by the level of interest that, for example, a Google search would reveal; that they are popular with some theoretical group of gay people (which in the way this cat is constructed tends to mean Western anglophone out gay men) is clearly not quantifiably demonstrable. It would probably be possible to quantifiably demonstrate that a person could fit in a cat called Category:People who regularly appear in gay media (i.e. you could count how often a person appears!) but the clumsiness of such a cat title suggests strongly it is not a useful way to subdivide articles! Valiantis 13:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you provide a source that someone is a celebrity of any kind? You note their coverage in the contemporary press, in books, in memorabilia sales, etc. The same is true of gay icons, you just use the gay press, gay-oriented books, sales of memorabilia targeted to gays, etc. We've gone through the process of identity-oriented, especially gay-oriented, category deletion again and again, and the same POV arguments come up, but yet no one makes an attempt to delete the supercategories, because they intrinsically understand that there is such a thing as, for instance, a celebrity, even if they can't objectively quantify the criteria. --TreyHarris 20:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mike H. David | Talk 08:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an important indicator of a given article's subject's place in popular culture. What possible reason could there be for deleting it? --Chips Critic 10:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am amazed that you ask "what possible reason could there be for deleting it?" without addressing a single objection against it, of which many were listed above. --Nlu (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the objections raised so far are valid. If one of them had been, I would have addressed it. --Chips Critic 15:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am amazed that you ask "what possible reason could there be for deleting it?" without addressing a single objection against it, of which many were listed above. --Nlu (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Darwinek 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As noted by SamuelWantman earlier, this category has been through deletion attempts three times previously, and as noted by Mike H, the category resulted from an AfD vote on a prior list. I don't see what has changed in terms of policy or usage, and I think it's rather bad form to perennially bring these categories up for deletion again and again until deletion finally happens. The onus for deletion is lighter than the onus to bring a deleted item back, so there's an incentive to keep bringing these items up again and again. Also, isn't it considered good form for a nominator to make note of prior deletion votes when bringing up a re-nomination? Most of the delete votes here were made before anyone pointed out that this was a renomination, so those voting had no opportunity to read the prior debates. --TreyHarris 20:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TreyHarris. -- ProveIt (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP I think it's wrong to delete this category because there are unresolved disputes. Gay Icons is a fun category. Sure there are a lot of disputes in it but there are a lot of disputes in the gay community! Look at any gay gossip board! So what if the disputes are "unresolvable" - so are many conflicts around the world. Does that mean we delete the countries? (On second thought don't answer that! :p ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.100.79 (talk • contribs)
- Definitely keep this article! This thread reflects an integral component of queer culture and is very informative and fun. Please reconsider! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.19.104 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Being "fun" should not be part of the consideration. --Nlu (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP Gay Icons are all through history. Let them have their place in our history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.238.199 (talk • contribs)
- STRONG KEEP I must agree that it is objectionable to continue to offer this category for deletion. It was considered and rejected three times. This category is informative and has cultural significance. Given the enormity of anti-gay prejudice in this society, it seems a bit disingenuous to continue to offer this category in this way. clearly it is being continually reoffered in hopes that it will garner different results. That's not appropriate or logical. the fact that information is sometimes disputed is hardly a logical reason for categort deletion on Wikipedia. Information is contested elsewhere as well. Should all categories subject to intellectual differences be considered for deletion? To what end? To put an end to differences of opinion and the free exchange of contrary opinions? And it seems disingenuous not to point out that a gay category is subject to contrary opinions not purely on the basis of fact checking, but on the basis of homophobic discomfort. Wikipedia should have a wealth of wide ranging information, particularly information of cultural significance that may not be available elsewhere due to prejudice. Please don't underestimate the intelligence and curiosity of Wikipedia regulars. Categories like this one can be a wealth of information for non-gay people who don't share the phobias apparent elsewhere. Like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.137 (talk • contribs)
STRONG KEEP! Gay icons are the essence of entertainment, whether straight people realize it or not. They always have been, always will be. I am dismayed that Wikipedia would even consider discontinuiing this category. Why? Christian hate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.212.138 (talk • contribs)
- Keep per TreyHarris Wuzzy 09:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per TreyHarris
- Keep per TreyHarris & Mike H. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP. This reminds me of the "death to disco" thing in the '70s. It was homophobia that spurred the disco backlash, because it wasn't enough that AOR and Punk were alternatives, the queers had to be put down. But synth-pop came hot on its heels and Hi-NRG with it, and even AOR and pop metal veered in a direction that had the same quarters clamoring for it to be brought to its knees once more. If this sounds like a tangent, think about the language you've heard people "dis" disco music, new wave music, Hi-NRG, "hair bands," boybands, female vocalists, sentimental music, opera, indeed pop itself, with..."Gay." It's all a part of the same issue, people identify these things as "gay" whether they're iconizing it or demonizing it. So as long as boybander A or pop diva B is going to receive the cultural stigma of being "gay," it might as well be acknowledged that there is a segment of the population that makes a similar association but without any of the negative emotion—to the contrary is drawn to seek it out and support it. No, indeed, not every gay white male in the U.S. will find every icon on this list to be a personal favorite, and yes, indeed, the entry would ideally be expanded—to the point of requiring disambiguation if and when necessary—to include the gay icons of not only all races and nationalities in the world today but throughout history. And presumably it would, were it allowed to remain long enough for people of varied viewpoints and other cultures to catch on to its presence and potential and offer their distinctions, impressions, additions, counterproposals, which when relevant would be incorporated into the article and represented in any list. Isn't that part of the point of Wiki, that if a (presumably) white male presents the initial definition and list, and can only do so from his perspective, anyone and everyone can submit their own views, and must, as none of us knows everyone else's culture? The very point that some people still don't get what this is about, some seeking to stomp it out yet again, others thinking it's merely fluffy fun, is why it's so necessary to allow this topic's exploration by its inclusion in Wikipedia, open to contributions that can be made anonymously by gays of all cultures - including those where homosexuality isn't merely sneered at or camped up but crushed by an overbearing society and who have no other avenue to contribute and "represent" their unique sexual, cultural truth - to allow people to recognize the deep need to acknowledge the importance of who, and by association what, one holds "sacred" and where that leads - or leaves - one. In whittling down these lists, we're not doing anyone a service, then, we're suggesting the examples must remain limited and then suggesting the limited view is part of the reason it should be removed. Does anyone need an article to tell them Madonna and Cher are gay icons? The point is to go a little deeper and provide a bit of an education as to why, and how the definition embraces some less obvious names that might have people scratching their heads struggling to understand the complexities in some instances, and in others simply going "A-ha!" (No reference to the Norwegian pop group!) This isn't about what Tom Cruise is going to feel about being included, it's about what everyone else has felt about being excluded, and what they've gravitated toward from that place, and why, and what it did for them; it's about the fact that certain individuals from all walks of life and throughout time have held a peculiar appeal for better or worse, in their words, actions, work, demeanor, or very life story. Indeed some have consciously—and others subconsciously—cultivated such an appeal. While still others would argue none exists? Or that it exists but is unworthy of recognition? Does not the Christian faith hold as all its holy icons Jewish figures...many whom the Jewish faith does not recognize or identify with? Yet some here can't understand how straight people would have unique appeal in the gay community, and that it should be up to straight people to sanction such an appeal? In fact, I would offer that the fact that a Tom Cruise might bridle at his inclusion in a list of gay icons is partly the point of the importance of such a list—not to tick him off, but to point out the fact that indeed, society coexists, and people take us as they will; we appear on one another's lists one way or another. The more one takes a stand or fails to, the more one constructs an image, the more one plays a role or shows their true selves, the more certain groups identify with them. I'm sure Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush don't want to appear on lists suggesting they be censured or impeached or brought up on charges in the Hague, but that's beside the point if they've lived the lives that warrant such inclusion. I'm not suggesting they have, I'm suggesting the question is, it's all in the outcome of the investigation, not in the squelching of its very idea, that answers and determinations ought to be arrived upon. The article as it exists now is sorely underexplored and as brief a list as appeared even before it was chopped in two is superfluous. In response to an earlier question: How can you provide a source that someone is a civil rights icon? And do you presuppose that person must be involved in black issues in America? Or is the struggle for civil rights a human issue that knows no color, sexuality, or border? Limiting the dissemination of information on the heroes or inspirations (read: icons) of oppressed groups is to participate in that oppression. While I find the article sorely underwritten, I agree with one point: the image of the gay icon as it's generally acknowledged in the mainstream media is counterintuitively apolitical. Such a thing in itself makes for an interesting discussion - is it the shallowness of gay culture, the fear of mainstream media to elevate a political icon, or the inability of the gay political movement to coalesce and re-present itself in the new millennium - and may invite the recognition that there are gays who do or would iconify, if I may coin a phrase, something deeper than a drama queen or a pinup. It is the challenge of the various constituencies within the gay community, as it is in the broader constituencies in the wider world community, to view their limited interests of preference with a dose of political awareness; and in this shrinking world, the only way we're going to manage to live together—or apart, for that matter—is to find a way to not only tolerate but be interested in our common personal advancement and sociopolitical identities. "Know thyself," but know how the self exists in external contexts; know there are other "selves" than onesself. The core of the negative response to this issue seems to be to preserve the ambiguity of certain people's sexuality so that wider audiences can enjoy their contributions without being aware of, soured or deterred by, a knowledge that they're interested in a gay person's work. We saw this in the 1950s when white audiences clamored for the music of black artists, but only when they were performed by white artists. Educated people in this millennium seeking to present a democratic encyclopedia shouldn't be supportive of preserving such ignorance. This isn't about outing anybody, but it mustn't be about closeting anybody either. Nobody's existence is devoid of a political reality, or the potential for a controversial response. Nobody's iconography is, either. Abrazame 12:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Keep- I agree that the inclusion of some people in this category is POV, but the fact that some editors can't or won't use the category correctly does not mean that the category itself is invalid. My suggestion would be to make the criteria for putting an article into this category stricter by ensuring that appropriate sources are cited always. If it discusses in a person's biographical article that they are a gay icon and includes a reputable source to support this, then that person could be put into this category. If someone is put into this category, without it being discussed and mentioned in the article, or if it's mentioned without a reputable source - we revert. Surely this is our standard approach to information - site a source - and I don't see this as difficult. This reduces the risk of POV creeping in. The category itself is relevant within the overall scope of queer topics and categories - gay icons are a significant part of some aspects of queer culture. Be strict and uncompromising about how the category is applied to specific articles, but don't delete the category just because it's hard to manage. I don't think it should be difficult if we just abide by the rules which already exist. I don't believe that disputes are "unresolvable" as they should be resolved the same way as any other dispute, and I have to say that many of the votes here, for and against, are demonstrating a POV rather than an argument. Rossrs 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to misunderstand the issues regarding sourcing and verifiability. In your earlier comment above you state in support of the verifiability of Category:Gay icons that we know Hitchcock was a good filmmaker "because a lot of people think so, and that's nothing more than a lot of opinion". That's true in so far as it goes, but we would always delete a category called "Good filmmakers" because its POV. The fact that it's the opinion of a lot of people doesn't make it any less their opinion. The fact that lots of people, including the woman herself (and FWIW myself!), think that Kylie (to take your example) is a gay icon, is again only the opinion of lots of people. The verifiability rules you quote refer to including information (including opinions) in articles; the point is that if you want to write in an article "Kylie is considered a gay icon" you have to show a source where someone states "Kylie is a gay icon". It would be inappropriate to write "Kylie is a gay icon" in the article because this is stating as fact something that is opinion. Similarly in the article on Hitchcock, one might write "Hitchcock is widely considered one of the world's best filmmakers" and quote the names of experts who had expressed this opinion; you would not write "Hitchcock was one of of the world's best filmmakers". In categorising, however, we have to categorise by facts not opinions; so Hitchcock belongs only in Category:Film Directors not in Category:World's best film directors. If your argument is that "Gay icons" should be kept because it is as verifiable as "Good filmmakers" then you are voting to delete "Gay icons"!! What your proposals about strict control of attributed sources would do is justify a category called something like Category:People who are considered gay icons. Categories named in this fashion seldom-to-never survive a CFD "vote". Valiantis 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I misunderstand the issues relating to sourcing and verifiability, but I admit that my "good filmmaker" comparison was bad and I wasn't looking at it is deeply as I should have, and as you were. But I stand corrected. Without recapping what you've said in reply to me, and to others, I agree with most of what you've said. I agree that categories should be based on fact, but I don't believe that it is only POV in calling certain people "Gay icons". I can see your point though, and I think you have made a stronger case for not using it, than I could make for keeping it. I'd be quite agreeable to seeing the category deleted as long as the List of gay icons/List of people regarded as gay icons replaced it, and was well maintained, referenced and accepted. (ie that it doesn't immediately end up on another VfD). The list would also allow room for for minor qualification/explanation, plus the all important source info. As a list, I would hope that it would be referenced to the same high level as, for example, List of notable brain tumour patients. You've swayed me and I have changed my "keep" to a "comment", although I think the point is probably moot. Thank you for your replies and for treating this as a discussion. Rossrs 02:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete subjective and prone to controversy Paul 21:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but clean up. --DrBat 23:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP - "Prone to controversy" is not a valid reason for deletion. Most encyclopedias would be devoid of entries were that the case. "Factual" information is often subjective, and changes depending on context and perspective. We would have to delete any reference to global warming, the theory of Evolution,abortion, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights. We would have to delete info on many inventions (who invented them versus who patented them-Cottin Gin, anyone?). Most of American History is contested at one time or another. Was Lincoln truly opposed to slavery? Or just a pragamist who saw which way the wind was blowing? Or perhaps neither? Was the Vietnam War justified? The Korean War? We could debate these issues forever, even with the "facts" known about them. Every single fact in any enclopedia is inevitably subject to controversy. And debate. Because Encyclopedia's are written by people, with limited space considerations, and perspectives informed by their own experiences, politics, and education. If Jesse Jackson writes an entry on Martin Luther King Jr., it will differ from one written by William F. Buckley Jr. (who accuses King of plagerism). No Encyclopedia is perfect. The only solution is to add as much information as possible; to allow the reader to intelligently discern what's "true" for themselves.
As for this..."Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Being "fun" should not be part of the consideration. --Nlu (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)" ... Really? I beg to differ. It would be a far better society if more people found entertainment value in Encyclopedias, Museums, Science exibits, etc. I was one of those children who loved reading the encyclopedia. Perhaps we should delete all references about mythology as well? I loved reading those. But who really needs information about old religious ideas that have long been abandoned. Science fiction? Far too entertaining. Perhaps all references should be deleted there as well. Information should be entertaining, informative, and exciting. Personally, I really enjoy reading new scientific theory. Theory-not fact. Perhaps that should all be deleted as well? Would anyone be asking that this category be eliminated if it did not pertain to gay community interests? I wonder... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.66 (talk • contribs)
As for this..."Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Being "fun" should not be part of the consideration. --Nlu (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)" ... Really? I beg to differ. It would be a far better society if more people found entertainment value in Encyclopedias, Museums, Science exibits, etc. I was one of those children who loved reading the encyclopedia. Perhaps we should delete all references about mythology as well? I loved reading those. But who really needs information about old religious ideas that have long been abandoned. Science fiction? Far too entertaining. Perhaps all references should be deleted there as well. Information should be entertaining, informative, and exciting. Personally, I really enjoy reading new scientific theory. Theory-not fact. Perhaps that should all be deleted as well? Would anyone be asking that this category be eliminated if it did not pertain to gay community interests? I wonder...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.66 (talk • contribs)
- Another outstanding request that I have for a category deletion is one for Category:Self-proclaimed Emperors, on pretty much the same grounds (POVness). You think that that is sexuality-related? --Nlu (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a straw man and a non sequitur. --TreyHarris 06:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to an unfounded accusation of homophobia is a non sequitur? --Nlu (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, responding to an accusation of homophobia by pointing out that something else you did was not homophobic is a non sequitur. But that's neither here nor there; I don't think you, nor anyone else who voted to delete, were being overtly homophobic—and even if we discount the keeps of the two people who have alleged homophobia, we still have no consensus for deletion. I think there might be an undertone of heteronormativity in the idea that gay iconification is impossible to source, or in the idea of classifying someone as a gay icon is inherently POV even when properly sourced, or in the fact that gay-related categories are often repeatedly brought up for deletion (I've watchlisted all the gay-related categories for this reason). That isn't individualized homophobia, it's just part of the systemic bias that pervades any tolerant society. --TreyHarris 07:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a more sophisticated way of declaring that all your opponents are POV. It is particularly frustrating that you choose to do this when some of us are trying to establish the meaning of verifiability despite the unhelpful contributions of people on both sides of the debate - not including yourself, I stress - who've made wildly POV statements, aggressively accused people of acting in bad faith, declared this category should go or stay without giving reasons, and/or added extended essays which have little to do with the matter in hand. Potentially, it might be questionable that this cat has been listed for deletion on several occasions, but I note there has been a long gap between its previous listing and now and that at the previous "vote" the voting was 17 "deletes" to 8 "keeps" by my count (I'm treating "Listify" as "delete" as the effect on the cat is the same). In other words, the cat only just scraped through as a "no consensus", there was definitely not a majority who wanted it kept and the terms of the debate were largely about the non-verifiability of the cat. IMO, this seems sufficient reason to allow it to be reconsidered after a gap of 9 or 10 months. There is also no suggestion that the cat is being targetted by an organised minority pushing POV which would be grounds for me to vote to keep to protect WP against abuse of process. My impression is that the cat will always end up being kept no matter how many times it gets listed on CFD as so few people take part here and only a handful of users need to oppose deletion to see the article kept. On this basis I doubt I'd ever list it here myself, but if it does come up I will vote to delete for the reasons wholly to do with preserving the unnuanced fact-based nature of the category system which I have set out in some detail above. The article on the term gay icon is of course able to discuss the issues regarding the term and include viewpoints that reject the usefulness of the term or highlight problems associated with its use as well as those that foster it or celebrate it. A well-maintained List of gay icons would also be quite acceptable to me as this could be sourced in a way no category can and even if people were added here unjustifiably this would not then impact on those people's biographical articles the way a category does. Others may feel differently (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of gay icons when the list was kept (no consensus) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay icons when it was deleted with almost no opposition!) but I think turning the list into a cat was a mistake. Valiantis 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, responding to an accusation of homophobia by pointing out that something else you did was not homophobic is a non sequitur. But that's neither here nor there; I don't think you, nor anyone else who voted to delete, were being overtly homophobic—and even if we discount the keeps of the two people who have alleged homophobia, we still have no consensus for deletion. I think there might be an undertone of heteronormativity in the idea that gay iconification is impossible to source, or in the idea of classifying someone as a gay icon is inherently POV even when properly sourced, or in the fact that gay-related categories are often repeatedly brought up for deletion (I've watchlisted all the gay-related categories for this reason). That isn't individualized homophobia, it's just part of the systemic bias that pervades any tolerant society. --TreyHarris 07:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to an unfounded accusation of homophobia is a non sequitur? --Nlu (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a straw man and a non sequitur. --TreyHarris 06:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic fancruft. Bhoeble 09:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Controversial, undefinable, unverifiable (for the most part).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is POV. It is hard to verified who is a "gay icon." It is all matter of opinion. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 18:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't dispute that it is hard to verify and there are no bright lines, but it is verifiable. See the reference to Kylie Minogue above. Surely when someone is asked in the press about being a gay icon, and they respond as if they are aware of that fact, there can't really be much reason to omit them. So it may sometimes be a matter of opinion, but not always. --TreyHarris 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have verified the existence of the opinion; you have not not demonstrated the fact. (Hardly surprising as this is not an issue of fact!) Kylie's opinion on herself is still just an opinion. Your example is an excellent source for including a statement in Kylie's article that she considers herself a gay icon; as verification of something sufficiently factual to be suitable as a category title it is without value. Let me give an unrelated example. "Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of the UK" is a fact. Tony Blair is therefore in Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. "Tony Blair is a terrible Prime Minister" is a (widely held!) opinion. Here is a source from a respected publication (The Times) spoken by a notable person (David Davis) demonstrating that this opinion exists; the opinion is thus verifiable. Nonetheless, we wouldn't put Tony Blair in Category:Terrible Prime Ministers and such a category would not survive a "vote" on CFD because it's categorising people by the opinions that people hold of them. The condition of being a gay icon is not a fact but an opinion that someone holds of you (or which you hold of yourself); ergo we shouldn't categorise people as gay icons no matter how well we can verify that this opinion exists. Valiantis 19:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Everyone yapping about homophobia and writing tirades on it really makes their case seem a lot worse. I wasn't going to vote, because I didn't care much, but all this talk about making it "fun" instead of encyclopedic kind of made me want to vote. Haven't you guys ever considered that sometimes you can follow the rules and have fun at the same time? There's tons of fun articles out there, maybe if you stopped reading about celebrities for one second, you'd find them. Peace, --Urthogie 18:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd. Two people have alleged homophobia (in what I agree were knee-jerk "tirades") and one person has talked about "fun", out of 15 keep votes. I don't know how you draw from that "everyone" and "all these people" are holding those views. --TreyHarris 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And you talked about heteronormativity-- perhaps the most genereally obviously true concept in the world, aside from "don't put all your eggs in one basket" or some other conventional wisdom.--Urthogie 18:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete far to subjective. It will never be verifiable, as there is no clear test for. Also, there is an extreme misuse of the word "icon". True icons, by definition, are rare. Mentioning a few in gay icon has utility, but labelling masses of people "gay icons" because they have some fans who are gay, is rather absurd. --Rob 18:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'STRONG KEEP It IS verifiable-by people WITHIN the gay community. Gay Icon may be a subjective term-but is anyone going to really try to argue that for a certain generation, judy Garland is NOT a gay icon? C'mon. As for homophobia- this deletion has been attempted THREE times before and has FAILED. Why does it keep coming up? Obviously in hopes that it will ultimately be deleted if it's brought up enough. You now have one person saying he's voting for deletion because homophobia has been mentioned. That's absurd. And deleters are twisting arguments in a most illogical fashion. Claiming that nothing intended for entertainment can also ne intended for informative purposes. Really? Because that's completely illogical. I can find something informative AND entertaining. As to verifiability-should we simply delete ALL categories pertaining to any subject that is culturally specific? If not, then why should information provided by that cultural subset not be considered "verification"? If gay people say that a certain public figure is a gay icon, then non-gay people can contest it to no end-but one imagines that gay people would KNOW who their icons were better than anyone. The arguments for deletion being presented here could be applied to any Enclopedic entry that is culturally, politically, or in any way subset specific. As to this; "labelling masses of people "gay icons" because they have some fans who are gay, is rather absurd." To whom? again, if there is a consensus among gay people that a public figure has served as an inspiration to them in some capacity, then that person can be labelled a gay "icon" with little fanfare.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.66 (talk • contribs)
- There's no way to gauge a consensus among gay people. Its not verifiable, and theres a ton of closeted gays who wouldn't be included in your "poll."--Urthogie 19:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I right in recalling that "votes" by anonymous users are discounted? A user at the IP address 205.188.116.66 has voted twice. Valiantis 19:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, but they didn't vote twice most likely. It's an AOL.--Urthogie 19:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just went the through the articles beginning with "A". I removed all but two, because the article didn't even claim they were gay icons (or use the word gay). I'm sure this is typical for the rest. --Rob 19:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you making a WP:POINT here? Ordinary wikiquette is to tag disputed facts first, then, if there's no sourcing after a suitable period of time, remove them. I've never claimed that all the entries in this category were valid, but to just remove Tori Amos? You must have no contact whatsoever with gay culture if you don't realize that she's a gay icon. For goodness' sake, "Tori Amos" and "gay icon" in a Google search returns hundreds of results. Did you even attempt to find a source for any of these removals? --TreyHarris 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, where living people are concerned it is the practice to remove disputed facts immediately to avoid issues of the John Seigenthaler variety. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. In addition, to be categorised it is good practice for an article to make reference to the subject of the category it has been put in. If the article does not do so then it is appropriate to remove it from the cat. It is possible to tag an article as missing sources; it is not possible to tag a category wikilink as lacking article content. Valiantis 19:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just skimmed Tori Amos and the article makes no reference to her being considered a gay icon. The word "gay" does not even appear on the page. Valiantis 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear I *only* removed articles that didn't even have the word "gay" or anything remotely resembling it, in the article. Any mention of anything remotely "gay", caused me to leave it alone (and just tag it for sources). This hostile reaction to my attempt to clean-up this category, proves that nobody will ever clean it up properly. I note, that in March 2005 this message was left on many bio article talk pages. The person adding the category admitted they did *no* fact checking, and was asking others to do it. It's a year later, and nothing has been done in most cases. So, is ONE YEAR a "a suitable period of time". Shall we wait another year. How many years do you think are needed? --Rob 21:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just sourced Tori Amos and put her back. I wasn't aware, however, that each categorization of an article needs to be discussed in the article. Where is that given in policy? --TreyHarris 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not policy. Sorry if my statement was unclear, though I did feel the use of the term "good practice" was sufficiently distinct from policy. It is, however, common sense and good encyclopedia writing not to stick articles into categories that cannot be justified on the basis of what the article says. Wikipedia:Categorization (which is a guideline) states "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." It seems to me that for it to be self-evident that a person belongs in the "gay icons" cat, the article should mention that they are considered a gay icon. Valiantis 03:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy doesn't explicitly require putting the such info in the body if the category is used. However, WP:LIVING strongly suggests, such a label ("gay icon") requires a proper citation. You can't put a citation on a category. You need actual text in the body of the article, to attach a citation to or to add a {{fact}} tag to ask for such a citation. The citations are needed, for people to efficiently review the correctness of the claims. It's far to easy for bogus labels to be mixed-in with the true ones, if they are all unsourced. --Rob 04:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not policy. Sorry if my statement was unclear, though I did feel the use of the term "good practice" was sufficiently distinct from policy. It is, however, common sense and good encyclopedia writing not to stick articles into categories that cannot be justified on the basis of what the article says. Wikipedia:Categorization (which is a guideline) states "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." It seems to me that for it to be self-evident that a person belongs in the "gay icons" cat, the article should mention that they are considered a gay icon. Valiantis 03:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete An article giving some examples is fine. A discussion on a bio that someone has been called an icon is good. But categories are binary - with the person is in or not, and this subject cannot be binnary as it is arbitrary and subjective. --Doc ask? 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Completely subjective. (This is about the icons on your desktop, right?) Just kidding. I don't think "gay icons" can ever be defined. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 19:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unmaintainable as a category. Put the most important examples in the article gay icon, mention it in prose and source it in the rest if it really is that important. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The word "subjectivity" has come up several times. We have reams of categories where there is a component of subjectivity. Category:Pacifists, Category:Feminists, Category:Humanists, Category:Philanthropists, to name a few. None of these can you say, this is person is absolutely, undeniably, in the category or not. Are those of you who are voting delete on the basis of subjectivity willing to also vote to delete every category that does not have a definite objective definition that can be definitively sourced? --TreyHarris 19:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a bad argument, but it doesn't fully address the issue, which is where the subjectivity lies. You are not wholly incorrect that there is a modicum of subjectivity in any category that is concerned with political or philosophical ideas - this is the nature of language. However, whether someone is a pacifist, for example, can be judged in their actions and their words; if Mahatma Gandhi says he is a pacifist and eschews violence then the fact of his pacifism is verifiable, not merely the opinion of third parties that he is a pacifist. "Broad-church" political or philosophical labels such as "feminist" are somewhat more complicated as what constitutes feminism is open to debate. However, most of the people listed in Category:Feminists are primarily notable as feminists. The reason they are in WP is because they spoke, wrote, or acted in a way that they themselves identified as feminist and this is the basis for them having an article in WP. As there is no membership card for feminism and no rule book the only workable test of whether people are feminists is that they declare themselves to be feminists (and the test for including this on WP is that a source can be found where they make this declaration). This is subjective, but the subjectivity lies with the person concerned. This differs from being a gay icon in two ways. Firstly, people in this cat are not primarily notable for being gay icons; to become a gay icon they first had to be famous for something else. Secondly, and more crucially, they are not gay icons because of what they say or do, but because of what other people say about them. (Some alleged gay icons may declare themselves gay icons, but it's not the declaration that makes them so. Such a declaration would not, I'm sure you'll agree, make them gay icons, if they had no gay fanbase). To put this into concrete terms, cats about people that categorise on the basis of how other people view them or name them are regularly deleted (regardless of whether the cat is pejorative); see discussions on sex symbols, the British far-right (the point being that this is not a term used by those people the cat was designed to include), "deadbeat dads" (ditto). Valiantis 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Valiantis put it very well - it's inherently ~POV. Category:People considered gay icons would be better if we must have this. —Whouk (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an inherently POV category. --
Rory096(block) 00:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. BlankVerse 06:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm Jack Malebranche, and someone referenced me in the article (flattering, thanks). Anyway, while the author of the article is correct in stating my negative assessment of gay icons and gay culture, I think it's nonsensical to imagine that the concept of 'Gay Icon' is completely subjective. While I wouldn't go extending it to everyone who said something nice about gay people, or to every flash in the pan pop sensation,there are probably thousands of books documenting a widespread, almost religious appreciation of Judy Garland, for example, within the gay community. Cher's fan base is so gay that her status is not only factual, it's a cliche. The term 'gay icon' is used often enough that I think a coherent and informative article could be created which would explain the concept to the uninitiated. Anyone with a few books on gay culture should be able to document how revered certain people, especially 'divas,' have been, historically, by gay people. I think that if you really keep the definition strict, and apply it only to people (er...women) who have been deeply revered among large numbers of gay people for a significant amount of time, it becomes less subjective. To say that people like Bette Davis, Cher, Judy Garland and Madonna are not gay icons is just silly. They define the term. Author Daniel Harris' "The Rise and Fall of Gay Culture" (Essay: "The Death of Camp") might be a good source to cite, off the top of my head. It wouldn't apply to someone like Tom Cruise--who is merely suspected of homosexuality. It would apply to people who are demonstrably a part of what is widely regarded as gay culture. I really think a thoughtful article could be created here, that notes the fanatical connection that numerous gays have to these people, and perhaps notes some of the many theories (there are tons of books and articles to cite here) about why homosexuals felt or feel so drawn to these people. These could run the gambit from 'positive' theories to ones that could be perceived as negative, and thereby diffuse POV issues. An article discussing the concept of gay icons would be more useful than a category/list. I few prominent examples could be listed in the article itself, but a category would just have people willy-nilly adding whomever. It's a concept, one with no shortage of writing devoted to it, not merely a category/classification. As a list, it is subjective. As an entry, it could be informative and non-political. Gay culture exists, and gay icons are an integral part of that culture, historically speaking; whether I or anyone else has a negative or positive opinion of that culture is irrelevant. Just my 2 cents.--24.21.68.5 19:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Northern Wei imperials
- 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. - TexasAndroid 16:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Northern Wei Dynasty emperors -> Category:Northern Wei emperors
- Category:Northern Wei Dynasty empresses -> Category:Northern Wei empresses
- Rename. To avoid clumsiness, I have moved Northern Wei Dynasty to Northern Wei, and I think in accordance the categories should be renamed. Further, even if there were a good reason to keep "Dynasty" in the article name, there is no real reason to do so for category names. --Nlu (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 17:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no need for such a category. -- Zzzzzzzzzzz 17:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No clear criteria for inclusion. Could very well include all spiral galaxies.--Kalsermar 17:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. David Kernow 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Bhoeble 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Kalsermar: could just be barred spiral galaxies. Or maybe we should include all galaxies because they're fraternal twins? Oh noes! --
Rory096(block) 19:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per Kalsermar. —Whouk (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 17:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no need for such a category. -- Zzzzzzzzzzz 17:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom--Kalsermar 17:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blanked by User:Sheep81, I assume he has good reason. Looks to be redundant. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is FIBT? -- ProveIt (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I think that means FIBT, as in a sports federation recognized by the IOC. These seems to make sense, as the Olympics are organized by sports federation. 70.51.9.222 17:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just confusing. Group the articles by sport so people will know what the categories contain. Golfcam 03:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Bhoeble 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is IIHF? -- ProveIt (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I think that means IIHF, as in a sports federation recognized by the IOC. These seems to make sense, as the Olympics are organized by sports federation. 70.51.9.222 17:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge down into its more usefully named (and well-filled) subcat Category:Ice hockey at the Olympics. Valiantis 00:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just confusing. Group the articles by sport so people will know what the categories contain. Golfcam 03:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Bhoeble 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is ISU? -- ProveIt (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I think that means ISU, as in a sports federation recognized by the IOC. These seems to make sense, as the Olympics are organized by sports federation. 70.51.9.222 17:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge down to its more usefully named subcat Category:Skating at the Winter Olympics Valiantis 00:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just confusing. Group the articles by sport so people will know what the categories contain. Golfcam 03:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Bhoeble 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Darwinek as a recreation of a previously speedy category rename. --William Allen Simpson
Caps, redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blanked by User:MatthewUND -- ProveIt (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; surely this is a useful cat.? James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; I assume User:MatthewUND had a good reason for blanking it; probably there aren't any potential members yet. If somone wants to populate it I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; Replaced by Category:North Dakota Supreme Court justices -- ProveIt (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to have been replaced by Category:North Dakota Supreme Court justices. Vegaswikian 19:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blanked by User:Sheep81 -- ProveIt (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate with Category:Wikipedia:Indefinitely blocked users, only populated by substitution of {{vandalblock}} which no longer contains the category. - Mike Rosoft 14:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge. - TexasAndroid 16:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either direction, actually like the longer name better (not everybody that has run for public office considers themselves a politician), but the short name is more intuitive (and created later, so the creator missed the longer name). --William Allen Simpson 12:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : I suppose it's possible to be a politician without running for public office...? (e.g. RFK...?) Spanner, David Kernow 05:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as nominator; indeed, there are non-elected politicians in pretty much every country. (Is a political activitist a "politician"? What if they're the chairman of their local party? What if, in the UK, they're a member of the House of Lords? What if... etc. etc.) James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge : Yes, the two categories [I belong to both] are not precisely congruent, but the broader category (politician) does in fact have more members. (Also, not that it matters here, but RFK did run for US Senator, successfully, and for President.) Kestenbaum 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that Robert Kennedy held unelected political office/s before becoming a Senator etc. Apologies if this mistaken. Regards, David Kernow 05:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he did, and I agree that he was a politician then. Indeed, U.S. attorneys general and holders of many other unelected positions are defined as "politicians" for the purpose of my own political history web site. All the more reason to use the "politician" name for the category. Kestenbaum 17:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that Robert Kennedy held unelected political office/s before becoming a Senator etc. Apologies if this mistaken. Regards, David Kernow 05:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
contained entirely within Category:Space colonization. Mlm42 11:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment might this be a useful subcategory, to differentiate beyween planetary colonisation and generational spaceships and things like that? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Tiny and inaccurate (the moon isn't a planet). Golfcam 02:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Withdrawn. - TexasAndroid 15:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The create comment was will populate later. The category is now populated. Vegaswikian 21:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I withdraw my nomination. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Administrative divisions of Russia to Category:History of administrative divisions of Russia
- 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 no consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is consensous to do a rename, but no consensous as to what the new name should be. - TexasAndroid 16:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The former category only contains articles related to the history of administrative divisions of Russia. Conscious 06:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:History of the administrative divisions of Russia. David Kernow 11:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back, there's no reason that history articles should have a separate subcategory, the articles are neatly titled by their respective years. See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4#Subdivisions to Administrative divisions. --William Allen Simpson 13:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is already Category:Subdivisions of Russia with lots of articles/subcategories, so a subcat for history would be quite useful. Conscious 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:History of the administrative divisions of Russia. This looks like it could be a long series and there are many other articles about subdivisions of Russia so the main category requires subdivision. Bhoeble 15:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move the contents of Category:Administrative divisions of Russia and Category:History of administrative divisions of Russia to Category:Historical administrative divisions of Russia. The latter should remain the subcat of Category:Administrative divisions of Russia. All this mess is completely my fault, by the way—I've been neglecting learning about categories for way too long.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose to deletion for now. But why not Category:Historic administrative divisions of Russia or Category:Former administrative divisions of Russia? Like other cats in that area? The whole thing could be coordinated somewhere to avoid deletion and re-creation and so on. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename (and merge where needed) to "Historial administrative divisions of Russia". Let's use an adjective rather than a noun. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding use of "Historic" or "Historical" in category names: since the former can carry overtones of "particularly notable", "classic" or the like, please may we prefer the latter? Regards, David Kernow 05:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; we've agreed not to categorise in this way. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think "press" is used as a category. There are instead media categories containing more specialised categories for newspapers, magazines and journals. Bhoeble 15:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundant with the already populated Category:Novels dealing with slavery. Delete.TheGrappler 13:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Was previously used for an organization where there were separate pages for each range of magnitude. Since the separate pages have been merged into a single page, there is no need for the category. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The category's title is ungrammatical, and the category has been superseded by "Category:Polish rebellions." KonradWallenrod 08:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and above. David Kernow 11:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Cat already exists with the school's correct nickname at Category:Tulsa Golden Hurricane men's basketball coaches. — Dale Arnett 04:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As above.--Mike Selinker 08:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Most definitely neither empty nor unused. Ingoolemo talk 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson
empty and unused -- ProveIt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 15:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is too fluid to be effective. Today's opposition politicians aren't necessarily tomorrow's political opposition. Moreoever, I can't find precedence for this category and that Category:Malaysian politicians should suffice. __earth (Talk) 04:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 15:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero encyclopedic value. There could be thousands of people in this category, but many people are already in so many categories that the most valuable of those categories are hard to spot. Delete Hawkestone 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. Conscious 09:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an interesting fact to know. 219.78.90.92 10:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is trivia. If it's interesting, it should be included in the article. Conscious 10:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Utter trivia. Valiantis 14:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom and Valiantis. Bhoeble 15:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. You guys might want to take a look at List of people who have been considered deities too. __earth (Talk) 15:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Utter trivia per Valiantis Golfcam 02:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This trivial category will soon be overpopulated Bwithh 21:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Metal Gear Solid games" is a subset of "Metal Gear games", and this category includes some Metal Gear characters that don't appear in MGS anyway. There's no need to have a parent "Metal Gear characters" cat, either, since the bulk of the characters would be in "Metal Gear Solid characters" anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge per nominator. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you specify NYC you don't really need to give the state as well. Could be called "Images of New York, New York" but Category:Images of New York City matches the other NYC subcats so rename to that Scranchuse 03:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, thinking of users outside the U.S., suggest Category:Images of New York renamed to Category:Images of New York State. David Kernow 11:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. I agree with David Kernow's point, but when the idea was raised before the Americans were set against it. In any case, the change should only be made on a systematic basis, not to random categories. Bhoeble 15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this renaming should be part of a larger proposal to remove unneeded state names from subcategories of Category:Images of cities of the United States. - EurekaLott 16:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator; agree with David. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Commonwealth country and the vast majority of countries have a "Sport in" category. CalJW 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Also, suggest parent category Category:Sports by country renamed to Category:Sport by country. David Kernow 11:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom Bhoeble 15:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator; as to David's suggestion of an AE->BE move in the category name, I don't think that this is warranted. James F. (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete by Darwinek --William Allen Simpson
redundant to Category:Czech porn stars -- ProveIt (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (and because it combines two category levels). David Kernow 11:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like this has already been speedily deleted. David Kernow 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
April 7
- 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling counts ... ProveIt (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete/rename. David Kernow 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a category off of a template. But I really only have issue with the category, not the template itself, so I'm bringing it here, instead of to TFS. Specifically, this is a category that only contains redirects. I can understand categorizing redirects on certain technical basis, but this is a normal content category, categorizing redirects as if they were full articles. I don't see this as particularly useful for navigation, when people don't generally end up on the redirect itself such that they would see the category. - TexasAndroid 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. That's a bad idea.--Mike Selinker 16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems useful, however unusual. You can get to the category via Category:Fictional characters and it seems like a useful way to sort them. But I'm not sure if there's some technical reasons agaist it so I'm not voting for now. --JeffW 00:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I should be clearer that the "bad idea" I was referring to is making an entire category based on linking from redirects, not the general concept of having secret identities categorizes. If there were real articles on Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark, I'd be all in favor of it.--Mike Selinker 04:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mike S. Second issue: what use is the template without the category? Any administrative usefulness for keeping track of this class of redirects is limited by the overzealous behavior of What links here. ×Meegs 09:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
North-West Frontier Province nominations
- 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. - TexasAndroid 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Universities and colleges in NWFP to Category:Universities and colleges in North-West Frontier Province
- Category:Schools in NWFP to Category:Schools in North-West Frontier Province
- Category:Chief Ministers of NWFP to Category:Chief Ministers of North-West Frontier Province
- Category:Governors of NWFP to Category:Governors of North-West Frontier Province
- Category:NWFP politicians to Category:North-West Frontier Province politicians
- Darwinek 07:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not need to chnage name. Everyone knows what NWFP stands in this category. It will make category name long. --Spasage 10:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am someone and I had no idea what NWFP stands for before reading this. This is a speedy as per the criteria listed above. Valiantis 14:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There were two separate categories that were merged per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 28#Category:NWFP Politicians to Category:NWFP politicians. As part of that debate, it was decided NWFP should be spelled out. NWFP may be known by most editors who contribute to this category, but not be all the readers. I certainly did not when I first saw it. -- JLaTondre 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Yeah, I never would have known what this meant. (So we don't have to vote five times, I condensed all these to one nomination.)--Mike Selinker 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I moved it here because of the objection. Standard practice is, if a speedy gets any sort of opposition or questioning comment, it drops to a full seven day nomination. There's really no rush on these. Also, thanks for combining them. I should have thought to do that myself. :) - TexasAndroid 19:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Common practice is expanding abbreviations. - Darwinek 09:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per my previous comment. Valiantis 14:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as common practice is expanding abbreviations. mattbr30 18:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Don't use abbreviations. -- Necrothesp 12:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensous. - TexasAndroid 13:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's unnecessary to have a separate category for females. It doesn't meet the guidelines as it isn't a gender-neutral name. JRawle (Talk) 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. We already have many cats specifically for women and this is a cat that is likely to be of interest to the reader. -- Necrothesp 17:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the category is kept, there should be a Category:Male life peers, otherwise it suggests females are somehow inferior. JRawle (Talk) 17:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree: it just suggests that females are worthy of categorisation, in this case because they are in a minority. --BrownHairedGirl 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the category is kept, there should be a Category:Male life peers, otherwise it suggests females are somehow inferior. JRawle (Talk) 17:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Gender-based categorisation should be avoided as per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, this subject is not notable enough to be an exception. This ghettoises female politicians without particular benefit. Mtiedemann 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Just have Category:Life peers --Henrygb 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Male and female life peers are identical in terms of creation, role etc, so the distinction is unnecessary and contrary to guidelines. Valiantis 14:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Note the following text from [race and sexuality]:
- Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General.)
- The same considerations apply here. Peers have historically been male, and until very recently, female peers were a rarity. Whatever view anyone takes on the merits of the gender of legislators, it is just as much a matter of "special encyclopedic interest" as the gender of heads of government.
- --BrownHairedGirl 11:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but note "both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category." I only began to object to the category when the people responsible for it began to remove females from the "Life peers" category as a "redundant category". I would be happy for it to remain, as long as female peers are listed in the gender-neutral category too.
- Perhaps I should add that hereditary peers were rarely female. This category only contains life peers, which has been open to males and females right from the Life Peerages Act in 1958. Perhaps a "Female suo jure hereditary peers" category would be more interesting. JRawle (Talk) 11:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Were any hereditary peers female? If there are any, I suggest that they deserve a category. You are of course right that life peerages have always been available to women, but the vast majority have been male, which is what makes the gender divide intersting.
- Yes there were a few, but they weren't allowed to sit in the House of Lords. Nathcer 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Peerage Act 1963 gave female hereditary peers the right to sit in the House of Lords. There is still at least one, the Countess of Mar, in the House as one of the remaining hereditaries (and possibly other people I can't think of at the moment). JRawle (Talk) 12:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there were a few, but they weren't allowed to sit in the House of Lords. Nathcer 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree that if the category is retained, these female peers should also be categorised in "Life peers". Could we add a note to the category pages to reflect this? --BrownHairedGirl 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a note to the female peers category, and whether or not we retain the category, I'll start adding them back to Category:Life peers. JRawle (Talk) 13:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely disagree. I think it's utterly pointless to have people in both a cat and its subcat. We rarely do it, so I don't see the necessity of it here. -- Necrothesp 14:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See the excerpt I posted above about female heads of state: this is one of those rare exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl 16:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't agree. Heads of state are unique - there's only one in each country at any one time. This is not the same case at all. I would rather get rid of the separate cat for female life peers than put them all in both cats. -- Necrothesp 12:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's how the Wikipedia guidelines specify it. Categories by gender should be avoided unless there's a reason for special interest in them (maybe this includes female peers, if you think they are particularly rare or special, which is the primary point of this debate). In those cases, they should still be listed in the main category too. (Reference) Categories aren't supposed to form a strict hierarchy, so it's not quite valid to say they would be in a category and its subcategory. (Reference) JRawle (Talk) 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See the excerpt I posted above about female heads of state: this is one of those rare exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl 16:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely disagree. I think it's utterly pointless to have people in both a cat and its subcat. We rarely do it, so I don't see the necessity of it here. -- Necrothesp 14:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a note to the female peers category, and whether or not we retain the category, I'll start adding them back to Category:Life peers. JRawle (Talk) 13:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Were any hereditary peers female? If there are any, I suggest that they deserve a category. You are of course right that life peerages have always been available to women, but the vast majority have been male, which is what makes the gender divide intersting.
- Support There are far too many female life peers for this to be worthwhile. Nathcer 03:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a useful list Jooler 16:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Law lords is the normal name for these people and is fully populated. I've never seen the term Law Life Peers before. -- Necrothesp 16:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:Law life peers (correct case) Isn't the idea of this category that it's a historical list of Law Life Peers? See List of Law Life Peerages. Category:Law lords is just a list of the current Law Lords. They retire at 70 and cease to be Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, but keep a seat in the House of Lords. Therefore I would suggest the categories Category:Lords of Appeal in Ordinary for current Law Lords, and Category:Law Life Peers for retired / historical ones. JRawle (Talk) 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]Keep for now. This categorization needs to be thought through and certainly not just deleted. I don't like splitting small numbers into current and historical but there is some confusion as to how law lords and former law lords are viewed - they are not ordinary life peers, at least whilst active, and should therefore be separated somehow. Mtiedemann 18:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Retirement is irrelevant. It's empty anyway. Nathcer 03:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Retirement is not irrelevant. If it was, there should be far more people in Category:Law lords. At present it only contains current Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. So as things stand, the current category is taking retirement into account. The second category is empty because articles were removed before it was listed for deletion.
- I actually removed only two articles from the cat (the sum total of its contents), both of whom were Lords of Appeal in Ordinary! -- Necrothesp 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is, once they retire they are no longer Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, but continue to sit in the House as a Life peer, but one created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act rather than the Life Peerages Act. Although Law Lord is a commonly used term, it is not the correct or legal term at all, and as such is ambiguous. JRawle (Talk) 13:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's at all ambiguous, since it's the term most people use! -- Necrothesp 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But most people are not editing an encyclopedia! Should "Law lord" (and I mean on Wikipedia now) refer to someone who is a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, or to everyone who was created a life peer under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (whether dead, alive but retired, or a Lord of A in O)? JRawle (Talk) 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who was originally created a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary should be in the Law Lords cat, yes. Maybe rename it Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to solve the problem? Why on earth should the cat only contain current Lords of Appeal? -- Necrothesp 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with that policy – one category containing all current and former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. In that case, "Law lords" is a better name for it. It was just that in your original statement you said it was "fully populated", which I took to mean it should only contain current law lords. I'll add List of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, which contains the current ones, to the category so people can always find the list of current law lords if they so wish. JRawle (Talk) 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who was originally created a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary should be in the Law Lords cat, yes. Maybe rename it Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to solve the problem? Why on earth should the cat only contain current Lords of Appeal? -- Necrothesp 12:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But most people are not editing an encyclopedia! Should "Law lord" (and I mean on Wikipedia now) refer to someone who is a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, or to everyone who was created a life peer under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (whether dead, alive but retired, or a Lord of A in O)? JRawle (Talk) 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's at all ambiguous, since it's the term most people use! -- Necrothesp 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as long as Category:Law lords can be used for current and former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary JRawle (Talk) 16:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per proviso set out by JRawle Mtiedemann 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 14:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename: CCM stands for "Contemporary Christian music" so "Christian CCM" is redundant ("Christian Contemporary Christian music"). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could also consider a merge to Category:Christian musical groups since the CCM cat is underpopulated and the CCM bands seem to be in this other cat. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems some major reorganization is needed. We also have Category:Christian CCM musicians
Category:Christian musicians, both of which include some bands, not individuals and for instance the Mormon Tabernacle Choir seems to fit none of these categories and currently is only in Category:Choir. I would suggest making Category:Christian musical groups more general in purpose and moving most of its contents to Category:Contemporary Christian musical groups with similar sorting for Category:Christian CCM musicians and Category:Christian musicians. I would suggest moving categories, CCM lists, Christian metal and Christian rock from Category:Christian music to category:Category:Contemporary Christian musical groups. Rmhermen 16:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least rename Category:Christian CCM musical groups → Category:Contemporary Christian music groups. Whatever other related categories are moved, merged or created, suggest (a) use of "music" rather than "musical" in names; and (b) expand any abbreviations. Regards, David Kernow 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Contemporary Christian music groups, and also rename Category:Christian musical groups to Category:Christian music groups. The name "Christian musical groups" suggests that the category is for musical groups whose members happen to also be Christian; the name "Christian music groups" suggests that the category is for groups that play music that falls under the category of Christian music. The former shouldn't be done, IMHO - categorization by religion should be done on the individual band members' articles, not on their band's article. -Sean Curtin 05:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant, see Category:Touchstone Pictures films
- Speedy delete, it's empty. Conscious 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:United States federal banking legislation → Category:United States federal financial legislation
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep as is. - TexasAndroid 14:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also proposed speedy-renaming Category:United States federal securities legislation → Category:United States federal financial legislation. Basically, I think these two categories, banking legislation and financial legislation should be merged into a new cateogry, Category:United States federal financial legislation. —Markles 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposed. Financial legislation and banking legislation, while similar, are not the same thing; articles in the banking legislation category specifically address regulation and structure of the banking system, while financial legislation deals with a variety of other topics, i.e. securities markets, etc. Paul 04:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My idea was just to lump together all related legislation, along with securities legislation. Paul is right that they are different and that Banking does have its own USC title. I'm just going along with his idea to break down Category:United States federal legislation into component subcategories by subject. Banking and insurance and securities are all different, but I think for the sake of the legislation category here, it would be helpful to group them together. I'm not wedded to the idea, though. —Markles 11:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per PaulHanson. Postdlf 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 14:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles have been merged into Planets of Warhammer 40,000 as per discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Planets. Localzuk (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no longer needed --Pak21 13:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Economics categories
- 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. - TexasAndroid 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed rename of all these categories deleting the JEL code at the end. For example, replace "Financial Economics JEL:G' by "Financial Economics".
Discussed previously Categories_for_deletion#Category:Economic_Systems_JEL:P
Category:Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics JEL:Q
Category:Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting JEL:M
Category:Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth JEL:O
Category:Economic History JEL:N*
Category:Economic Systems JEL:P
Category:Financial Economics JEL:G
Category:General Economics JEL:A
Category:Health, Education, and Welfare Economics JEL:I
Category:Industrial Organization JEL:L
Category:International Economics JEL:F
Category:Labor and Demographic Economics JEL:J
Category:Law and Economics JEL:K
Category:Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics JEL:E
Category:Mathematical and Quantitative Methods JEL:C
Category:Microeconomics JEL:D*
Category:Other Special Topics (Economics) JEL:Z
Category:Public Economics JEL:H
Category:Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology JEL:B
Category:Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics JEL:R
Categories marked with * have a child with the required name. JQ 06:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per request of cat creator. --Blainster 07:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and also put the Es into lower case Bhoeble 11:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse suggestion to put Es into lower case, and more generally adopt standard Wikipedia conventions on case JQ 23:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Category names should be natural--Henrygb 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Natural? What is natural about "JEL:H"? Perhaps you meant support. -- Samuel Wantman 00:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rename per nom, and previous discussions. I suspect some of these will be minimally populated and also should be totally deleted, but that can happen later. Also support applying standard capitalization conventions. -- Samuel Wantman 00:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further request. Rename Category:Mathematical and Quantitative Methods JEL:C to Category:Mathematical and Quantitative Methods (Economics) JQ 04:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support rename per nom. Let's move on this one -- the author of these categories is requesting, and nobody else has used them (or ever will). Cleduc 03:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:New England Association of Schools & Colleges to Category:New England Association of Schools and Colleges
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 14:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See related proposal below. There is admittedly a good deal of inconsistency at www.neasc.org (for instance, both versions are used on the same page at [1]), but the "and" is spelled out in their letterhead, newsletter, accreditation manual, and call to annual meeting among others, and the long form is preponderant in numbers. choster 05:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- rename as per nom. Bhoeble 11:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- merge into existing category. The articles should be merged in that direction as well -- ProveIt (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was reverse merge. - TexasAndroid 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; New England Association of Schools and Colleges is the correct orthography. This category should be kept; Category:New England Association of Schools & Colleges is the one which should be deleted.-choster 04:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; other cat to be merged here. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Vegaswikian 19:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 14:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Covered by Category:Historic weather events in the United States
- Delete per above Funnybunny 03:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Category:Historic weather events in the United States has 97 articles cureently. It seems reasonable to have all the hurricanes (more than a dozen articles at the moment) in a subcat, especially as in the subcat they could then reasonably be indexed by name rather than all under 'H' as they are in the parent cat. Valiantis 14:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Still empty after 10 days of CFD. - TexasAndroid 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused -- ProveIt (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP category was blanked, no reason given, will repopulate. 132.205.45.110 18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sliders sliding what is this all about. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 20:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is about sliding sliders, except the category needs to be populated. I don't see a proper heirarchy for sledders. As I've just added a description for FIBT olympics... this just needs popoulating with bobsleigh, luge and skeleton. 70.51.9.222 17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Sledding at the Winter Olympics. The parent cat is called Sledding and this seems to be the generic term for bobsleigh, luge and skeleton. Possible created by a non-first language speaker ?? Valiantis 00:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Still empty after 10 days of CFD. - TexasAndroid 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused -- ProveIt (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP category was blanked, no reason given, will repopulate. 132.205.45.110 18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sliders sliding what is this all about. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 20:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is about sliding sliders, except the category needs to be populated. I don't see a proper heirarchy for sledders. As I've just added a description for FIBT olympics... this just needs popoulating with bobsleigh, luge and skeleton. 70.51.9.222 17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Sledders at the Winter Olympics. As per my comment in the similarly named cat. Valiantis 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 13:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant -- ProveIt (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP category was blanked, no reason given, will repopulate. I don't see redundancy, except that heirarchy was flipped on its head at some point. 132.205.45.110 18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Catered fo elsewhere "Figure skating", "Speed Skating" yes redundant, what is this all about. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 20:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really just a duplicate. ProveIt (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, this is merge not rename.
- Merge per nom. Funnybunny 03:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. - TexasAndroid 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This really needs to be merged. We finally have resolved the dispute on Anaheim Angels to redirect to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Having a subcategory for the Anaheim Angels is redundant. The only difference between the categories is a name change. It is really the same team with the owner, players, baseball stadium and everything else remaining the same after the name change. There is no subcategory for California Angels and Los Angeles Angels (2 other previous names of the team). PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have no problem with this, but I would have a problem with merging the player categories. Let's not have anybody play for teams they didn't play for.--Mike Selinker 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
April 6
Category:United States Highways by state -> Category:U.S. Highways by state or Category:U.S. Routes by state
- 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 to U.S. Routes by state. Syrthiss 03:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this was improperly speedy renamed two months ago for some reason. The roads are U.S. Highways (or U.S. Routes, though that change could not be speedily done). This is not a case of using U.S. for laziness - the vast majority of times such a highway is referred to, it is U.S. Please undo this improper speedy. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 04:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 23:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- surely if something has been speedied and theres now an objection its very similar to having an objection at the time - so it should be debated below rather than just respeedied. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Improper speedy? Speedy rename R5 is abbreviation expanding for country names. At the least, both Kbdank71 and I looked at it (his and my names appear on the deleted cat) and there were no objections. Since I could have to be the closer for this discussion I will not make a binding recommendation (ie for closing treat this only as a comment), but my feeling is leave it expanded. --Syrthiss 01:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (note: this vote was made for Category:U.S. Highways by state --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 04:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Route is fine. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy move and if possible move to Category:U.S. Routes by state. An improper speedy should be undone by default. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 04:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you say it was improper. You are welcome to provide evidence as to why it was improper. I resent the implication that Kbdank71 or I did this change in an improper way. --Syrthiss 12:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say you were in the wrong; as far as you knew it was proper. But now I have brought up that it is clearly not the right name, and so it should be speedily reversed. (Though given that it might be moved to U.S. Routes, we should hold off on that.) --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 12:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Category:U.S. Routes by state per naming convention, see contents of Category:U.S. Highway System. As a whole, they are a "Highway System" but the individual roads are designated "U.S. Routes". — Apr. 7, '06 [04:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Note - gonna keep this unresolved for a day, I left a message for Rschen7754 on their talk page since their comment was before the Route choice was stated. --Syrthiss 13:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopelessly ambiguous... ProveIt (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 13:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the category system "art" means "visual arts" so Japan should not have both. Merge into Category:Japanese art in line with the sister categories in Category:Art by nationality. Sumahoy 22:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 11:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 13:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a redundant category as Category:R&B musicians already exists and all the artists in this category are already part of other R&B categories. --Musicpvm 22:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP consensus has been to work toward a better subdivision of the musicians categories by the specific type of musician (eg. vocalists, keyboardists, guitarists, etc.); not all R&B musicians are vocalists. The answer here is cleanup, not deletion. Keep and populate. Bearcat 02:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically, Rename to Category:R&B singers as per Category:Vocalists by style and guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization. –Unint 06:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from closing admin - I think that this last suggestion is the probable best first step, though really in my opinion...since the cat is Vocalists by style then the all the subcats should more likely be Fooish vocalists instead of Fooish singers. Then R&B Vocalists wouldn't need a rename, and it could be fully populated as per Bearcat. However, there wasn't enough consensus to do any one thing so I'm tossing this back for now. --Syrthiss 13:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A user decided arbitarily that although well over a hundred countries have separate politics and government categories, Belarus should be different. I will repair the damage and this will soon be empty. It can then be deleted. CalJW 22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Several Fooian companies to Companies of Foo
- 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 per nom. Syrthiss 13:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Carina22's nomination below for Category:American cable companies, I have found some others for consideration to be changed to X companies of Y:
- Category:Canadian cable and DBS companies → Category:Cable and DBS companies of Canada
- Category:British film production companies → Category:Film production companies of the United Kingdom
- Category:American film production companies → Category:Film production companies of the United States
- Category:American television production companies → Category:Television production companies of the United States
- Category:Australian television production companies → Category:Television production companies of Australia
- Category:British television production companies → Category:Television production companies of the United Kingdom
- Category:Canadian television production companies → Category:Television production companies of Canada
- Category:Dutch television production companies → Category:Television production companies of the Netherlands
- Category:French television production companies → Category:Television production companies of France
- Category:German television production companies → Category:Television production companies of Germany
mattbr30 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. Sumahoy 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps this is just evidence of my inconsistency, but the present names seem preferable... is it because countries are involved? David Kernow 05:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. With regard to the above point, there is a conflict between the convention for cultural categories and that for companies. I think the convention for companies should be given priority as it is more specific to these entities. Bhoeble 11:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like the name of a supranational economic community, but it isn't one. Rename to more standard form CalJW 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 05:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Syrthiss 13:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to sort a redirect to an existing category without knowing that this doesnt strictly work with categories the same way it does with standard articles. Delete please! An Siarach
- Move to speedy. David Kernow 04:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Empty an requested by creator. Bhoeble 11:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More unworkable crap, see also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 2#Template:Rootpage and Wikipedia:Templates_for deletion/Log/2006 April 6#Template:Branchlist. Delete. — Apr. 6, '06 [17:53] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Delete the category and everything in it. This is just an attempt to bring back hierarchical navigation like Wikipedia:Subpages. — Omegatron 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. CalJW 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons already discussed elsewhere.--Srleffler 22:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - mako 03:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Omegatron. Tijuana Brass 05:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Order to Category:Companions of the Distinguished Service Order
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it is actually an Order, the official designation for recipients of the DSO is "Companion", so it seems sensible for us to use it. Necrothesp 09:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - I guess I didn't think this through before creating it. :-S Craigy (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already a category for Shania Twain singles, and this category is empty.
- Delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 07:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no point, if it's not being used. The JPS 22:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per The JPS. Ardenn 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per jps pm_shef 06:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Completely useless category, small and very little (if any) potential for growth, really unnecessary. pm_shef 05:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was bleh! delete, since its an article pretending its a cat anyhow (no articles in the cat). Syrthiss 14:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article, not a category ... ProveIt (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is definitely list material.--Esprit15d 15:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This category is in the process of being listified and then deleted. So it's already underway. (Update: I see I was in error. So delete.)--Mike Selinker 19:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The category being listified is Category:HFStival acts, so we can simply delete this one. - EurekaLott 01:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify and delete; having played any rock festival that isn't named Woodstock is not a significant enough part of an artist's history to be considered a primary point of categorization. Bearcat 19:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Two "X member" categories
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Council on Foreign Relations member to Category:Members of the Council on Foreign Relations
Category:Trilateral Commission member to Category:Members of the Trilateral Commission
[These n]eed to be pluralised and the proposed word order reads better in my opinion. Hawkestone 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename. Hawkestone 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename both per nom. David Kernow 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. -choster 13:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 15:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete. I created by mistake. the correct one: category:Women of the Ottoman Empire. Mukadderat 04:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. David Kernow 10:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, per request.--Esprit15d 15:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Institutions" is really vague and no other city has such a category that I know of. I've taken out the media category, which really doesn't need to be here, and replaced the education category with a couple of its own subcategories which are more appropriate. Those two both belong in the main city category, so they don't need to be in a vague and somewhat opinionated intermediate category as well. Can we make this match the others in Category:Organisations by city? I've also added made it a subcategory of Category:Australian organisations. Merchbow 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename as per nom. Athenaeum 13:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Two Category:Political history of the United States 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. Syrthiss 14:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Historic United States political movements → Category:Historical political movements of the United States
Category:Historic United States political parties → Category:Historical political parties of the United States
To (a) remove overtones of "particularly notable", "classic" and the like associated with the description "historic"; and (b) to follow X of Y naming prevalent in Category:Political history of the United States.
- Rename as nom. David Kernow 02:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nom. mattbr30 21:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was upmerge if needed and delete. Syrthiss 14:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unnecessary subcategory of Category:Schools in New Zealand. Upmerge and delete. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/delete per nom; looks like a confusion between lists and categories. David Kernow 02:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redundant category. --Terence Ong 09:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stong delete.--Esprit15d 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and upmerge or move contents into other subs if not already there. mattbr30 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete FWIW I'd delete all bar about five of the individual schools, but this cat is pointless. Neil Leslie 05:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has 14 entries and is marked "underpopulated". 14 too many I would say. This is an unencyclopedic category. Carina22 01:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom pm_shef 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Maybe is a better list, if anything.--Esprit15d 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Crumbsucker 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete if kept will need better capitalising. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A list would be better, if this is necessary at all, but Wikipedia really shouldn't be in the business of categorizing people by hair colour. Delete. Bearcat 19:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Three surname categories
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Vanderbilts to Category:Vanderbilt family
Category:The Whitneys to Category:Whitney family
Category:The Kochs to Category:Koch family
Th[ese] should follow the usual form for family categories. There is a comment on the [Koch] talk page that the existing form is preferable because there are articles in the category which are not about family members, but so what? The standard name does not impose the restriction inferred and plenty of other family categories include a range of articles. Carina22 00:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename to match most of the other items in Category:American families. Carina22 01:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom --Nobunaga24 01:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is in Category:American families, but it is not about a family as such, but a descendents of a particular person. This seems to be a bad idea - imagine such a policy applied to European royals and aristocrats! Carina22 01:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete as above. Carina22 01:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/listify per nom. David Kernow 02:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Empty but keep as cat for articles about JE and his works, like Category:Arthur Conan Doyle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 6 April 2006 00:30
- Delete No good reason for a category. Athenaeum 13:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I had tried to research converting it per Pmanderson but suffered a system crash and then forgot about it. I do not believe there are enough Jonathan Edwards-related articles to merit a category, at least for now. -choster 13:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify. mattbr30 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is of the same nature as any other "xxx family" category, but because Edwards is a fairly common name, the progenitor is identified by first name. For example, The Whitneys (nominated for renaming above) deals with, according to the Whitney family article, "begins with William Collins Whitney (1841-1904)". Same goes for most of the other "family" articles. Either get rid of the whole bunch, or keep this one like the others. Gene Nygaard 02:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a category could be named something like Category:Edwards family (Connecticut), or Category:Edwards academic family, or Category:Edwards-Dwight family. But a category titled Jonathan Edwards should be primarily about Jonathan Edwards himself, and there are not enough articles to make it so. Besides, these are not a handful of immediate family members but distant descendants. WP isn't Rootsweb; we wouldn't put Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in Category:Heinrich I von Eilenburg either. -choster 04:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But then you have a renaming question. This ought to be debated on the basis of what the category is and was apparently intended to be, a family category, not about keeping it for a category for JE and his works, unless the keep is combined with a creation of a new category and moving this one's contents. Gene Nygaard 10:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doesn't appear to be a family in the same sense as the others are. Bhoeble 11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; overcategorization. Bearcat 19:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - redundant categories; "slang and jargon" bit more inclusive, so merge into that category Nobunaga24 00:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per nom. Carina22 01:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom.--Esprit15d 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per nom. mattbr30 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 11:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
CSI categories
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI>Category:CSI actors
Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: Miami>Category:CSI: Miami actors
Category:Actors and actresses appearing on CSI: New York>Category:CSI: New York actors
Rename all the above. Arniep 00:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nom. Carina22 01:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh boy, more tv show categories crammed full of guest stars. Delete and start over. - EurekaLott 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as suggested by EurekaLott Athenaeum 13:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per EurekaLott.-choster 13:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as we've done with all other shows' guest star cats. ×Meegs 14:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do we distinguish a guest star from a non guest star, i.e. how many episodes do you have to appear in not to be a guest star? Arniep 15:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't have a problem if we defined it as liberally as two discrete appearances (i.e., not one two-part episode). As long as we can avoid the category bloat caused by listing every actor who appeared in the show, I'll be happy. - EurekaLott 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You see that that is where there is a problem as I would have a thought someone who appeared in only two episodes was still a guest star, maybe even 3? I am not sure of the point of these categories at all when a cast list for the main characters is usually on the relevant page. Arniep 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't have a problem if we defined it as liberally as two discrete appearances (i.e., not one two-part episode). As long as we can avoid the category bloat caused by listing every actor who appeared in the show, I'll be happy. - EurekaLott 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all i have no problem with adding guest stars. Crumbsucker 21:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per EurekaLott. Bhoeble 11:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm going to support the previous votes since no one has offered a reason to overrule past consensus. I will ask, why not clean all of these up at one time rather then in small groups? Vegaswikian 20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first time (that I can recall) where we've come close to consensus on categories that mixed guest stars with regular and recurring cast members. If we're able reach a decision here, I intend to nominate similar categories for the same treatment. - EurekaLott 16:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to get them deleted in December but met with a vast majority of keeps: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_26#Actors_by_series_and_its_sub-categories. Arniep 21:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not terribly inclined to believe that actors should be categorized on the basis of having made one guest appearance on a particular TV show. That's sitting uncomfortably close to the fancruft line for my taste. Delete all. Bearcat 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any articles about individuals in this at the moment fortunately, but it would be prudent to rename it to reduce the risk of confusion with Category:Money managers, which is for articles about individuals. Carina22 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename as above. Carina22 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amend to comply with the convention for categories of companies. Carina22 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename as above. Carina22 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom.--Esprit15d 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nomination (PS I have listed some more above). mattbr30 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
April 5
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category should use the "in" form like its parent and children. Rename CalJW 18:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- support. -Irpen 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. --Mais oui! 18:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom, as Northern Ireland included. David Kernow 02:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Rugby league stadiums
- 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 both. Syrthiss 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 subcategories to be renamed in line with other sports venue categories and for consistency with the parent:
- Category:Australian rugby league stadiums --> Category:Rugby league stadiums in Australia
- Category:British rugby league stadia --> Category:Rugby league stadiums in the United Kingdom
- Rename both Choalbaton 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support. --Irpen 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both per nom. David Kernow 02:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 13:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia naming conventions. ProveIt (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- note this is merge not rename -- ProveIt (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename Choalbaton 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy merge per nom. David Kernow 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- speedify. This is non-issue. -Irpen 18:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - wiki is not a crystal ball. Syrthiss 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See below. We don't have Byzantine sites in Greece or Byzantine sites in Turkey, do we? There is nothing in the article on Trani which warrants its inclusion in the category. I looked through the hefty "History of Byzantium" which mentions dozens samples of Byzantine architecture in Italy. No Trani here. Delete frivolous and meaningless cat. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- del as per nom. --Irpen 18:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep has the possibility of expansion and filling up as in all the Greek sites in... & Roman sites in .... Carlossuarez46 20:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Bysantine sites and include half of ;Category:Byzantine art; we can subdivide when (and if) necessary. I took the (unsupported) cat off Trani. Septentrionalis 05:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Started by User:Attilios specifically to categorize Trani. Completely out of line with existing categorization schemes. There is nothing outstanding in Trani that warrants its categorization as "a Gothic site". If the author wants the categorization to be consistent, he needs to explain which city is a "Gothic site", "Renaissance site", "Baroque site", "Art Nouveau site", etc, etc. I'm afraid the consistent application of this criterion would plunge Wikipedia into an abyss of pointless and uninformative categorization. Paris, for instance, would have to be included into a dozen cats: it is a "Gothic site", a "Romanesque site", a "pre-Romanesque site", etc. Hence, delete. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- del as per nom. --Irpen 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete categorization by architecture type, rather than by cultural inroads and foundation as in Byzantine above, is not to be started. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Started by User:Attilios specifically to categorize Trani. Completely out of line with existing categorization schemes. There is nothing outstanding in Trani that warrants its categorization as "a Gothic site". If the author wants the categorization to be consistent, he needs to explain which city is a "Gothic site", "Renaissance site", "Baroque site", "Art Nouveau site", etc, etc. As 90% of cities in Europe may be described as "Gothic sites", the consistent application of such a criterion would plunge Wikipedia into an abyss of pointless and uninformative categorization. Hence, delete. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- del as per nom. --Irpen 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gothic is ambiguous (having to do with Goths? architecturally? foreboding and scary? filled with teenagers with white makeup, piercings, wearing black?) Assuming by context what is intended: categorization by architecture type, rather than by cultural inroads and foundation as in Byzantine above, is not to be started. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through Category:Categories for deletion, and apparently this was tagged a long time ago, but never listed here, so I posted it. Looking through it, I'd have to agree, delete. Nobunaga24 15:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been cfd not prod... -- ProveIt (talk)
Keepunless someone can explain why the person who orphaned it in the same edit put a tag on it to delete it because it had been orphaned. Gene Nygaard 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Okay, that explanation satisfies me. 13:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to; if you could be a bit more explicit, I'll be happy to try to address your concerns. John Reid 19:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- redundant to Category:Euclidean plane geometry. Orphaned and tagged during general overhaul of all compass and straightedge-related articles. John Reid 19:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Winston Churchill is in a huge number of categories even without this cluttersome trivia. This merits a list in the bow tie article perhaps, but not a category. Hawkestone 13:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete as above. Hawkestone 13:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We've been down this road recently, and the result was to keep it. (Can't find the previous nomination, though.)--Mike Selinker 14:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you thinking of February 16 - Category:Famous Bow tie wearers? CLW 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Seems like six weeks later is too recently to revisit a nomination. Let's wait six months.--Mike Selinker 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Deletion says that an article for deletion shouldn't be relisted immediately if the deletion fails. While that is articles and this is categories I don't see why the criteria should be different and six weeks is definitely not immediate. (And, BTW the result of the previous go around was No Concensus, not Keep). --JeffW 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Seems like six weeks later is too recently to revisit a nomination. Let's wait six months.--Mike Selinker 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you thinking of February 16 - Category:Famous Bow tie wearers? CLW 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unencyclopedic criterion. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unencyclopedic criterion. This is an encyclopedia, not a miscellany. Choalbaton 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. Just clutter. --Irpen 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete So what's next? Boxers or briefs? --JeffW 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify and Delete. Not needed. Carlossuarez46 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- listify and delete. much better as a list. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a list would not make any difference as this is unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 09:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, criterion is too unstable/subjective. And boxer briefs. - choster 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ListifyMayumashu 05:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match category:American cuisine. Bhoeble 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Isn't there more of a case for renaming category:American cuisine to category:United States cuisine, since this would be more accurate? "America", after all, is more than just the US. CLW 13:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This has come up a lot, and each time the conclusion is that "American" is the adjectival form of "United States." Blame us United Statesians for not coming up with a better adjective for ourselves.--Mike Selinker 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename As stated, "American" is the adjectival form of "United States." Choalbaton 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nomination. mattbr30 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, wouldn't "Wines of the United States", be more apropriate. To avoid confusion with someone searching for North American or South American wines? --Barberio 09:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No it would not. We have been through that debate more than enough times and it seems to me that the potential for such confusion is purely theoretical. In any case, readers of the English Wikipedia should familiarise themselves with normal English usage. This is not the place to change the English language to suit the needs of Latin Americans or anyone else; we should use English as it is. Bhoeble 11:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. --Darwinek 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. - Nat Krause(Talk!)`
- 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:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios characters to Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios series and characters
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The former catergory is redundant if the latter category also exisits. CLW 08:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can't tell for sure, but someone may have been in progress of moving entries from one to the other, given that one category has only items beginning with J or later, and the other is mostly A through H.--Mike Selinker 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from closing admin - both cats seem to have population as of time of closing so whatever was happening when Mike made his comment appears to have completed. --Syrthiss 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these entries are trivia. If trivia from every book, film, etc... gets a category, then categories become trivial. This subject is already handled quite will at Salvation Army Filmography in which I found out that in Pieces of April someone bought a suit at the Salvation Army. "What links here" can be used to find all the lists of trivia that mention a film. -- Samuel Wantman 05:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ×Meegs 07:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Articles shouldn't be classified by minor attributes or references. Bhoeble 12:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. David Kernow 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. -Irpen 18:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the utility in conflating art movements and political movements just because they both have "movement" in their names. Perhaps this should be split into Lists of arts movements and Lists of political movements but with only three items it hardly seems worth it. JeffW 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the best argument I can think of against this category is that until I clicked on the link, I had no idea whether "movements" was referring to artistic groups, political action groups, pieces of music or physical actions such as "hop", "skip" and "jump". If further articles can be found to file in them, then split into separate (and less ambiguously titled) political and artistic categories; otherwise delete, because this doesn't serve any useful purpose as currently constituted. Bearcat 04:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I doubt there will ever be enough of a population to warrant splitting. After deleting, the entries will be split into two different categories of lists (whoever closes this should be careful). -- Samuel Wantman 05:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. --Irpen 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as too unfocused. David Kernow 02:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 14:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Less POV title in light of no consensus to delete (see here) David Kernow 03:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as nom. David Kernow 03:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not all of the entries match the new title, and I don't think it matches the original intention, or not all of it. It also covers progamming fiascos which didn't cause disasters in the sense of loss of life. 12:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhoeble (talk • contribs)
- Oppose. While it's true that some software engineering did cause disasters (and some of the articles in the category exemplify that),there are plenty of software engineering projects that were themselves disasters. Ed Yourdon's book Deathmarch names some as does Software Runaways; Lessons learned from Massive Software Project Failures by Robert L. Glass. Atlant (updated 7 April 2006)
- In which case, re the comments above, there seems to be the need for two categories: Category:Software engineering failures or the like; and the subcategory Category:Disasters attributed to software engineering. Regards, David Kernow 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose move. No need to weaselize. --Irpen 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A distinction between software causing disaster and software failing to perform has been made. Is that "weaselizing"? Curious, David Kernow 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose move. There seems to be a trend toward longer and longer category names, which make the list of categories at the bottom of articles hard to read. Category names should be as concise as possible, in my opinion. And, if anything, the incidents in question are attributed to a lack of software engineering. --agr 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the manner in which categories are listed at the bottom of articles needs reconsideration. There seem to be too many instances where clarity, grammar and/or syntax have been sacrificed for the sake of a compressed category name. "Fatally crashed racecar drivers", "American Revolution people" (something from the sixties?), etc, etc... David Kernow 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Both seem like reasonable category names to me. I think category names are like newspaper headlines, where rules of syntax are often relaxed. In the pre-computer library card catalog one was more likely to find a subject card titled "American Revolution - people" than "People Associated with the American War of Independence (1775–1783)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldReinhold (talk • contribs)
- For the sake of those non-native speakers visiting the English Wikipedia, I'd be happier with "X Revolution - people", "X Revolution: People" or the like, i.e. something that doesn't treat a noun phrase as an adjective. But "fatally crashed [noun phrase]"?! Let's take advantage of the fact Wikipedia doesn't have to use a pre-computer library card catalog approach... I'm all for trying a show/hide listing of categories one-to-a-line at the bottom of a page, akin to TOCs. Thanks for your thoughts, David Kernow 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The way we're going, you wouldn't get one to a line. I agree with ArnoldReinhold; succinct category names are better. Gene Nygaard 02:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
April 4
- 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. - TexasAndroid 12:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This cat doesn't match its sister cats or Category:Geography of New York. Therefore rename. Scranchuse 23:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. mattbr30 15:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. --Terence Ong 09:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. --Darwinek 13:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename --Spasage 12:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is really an article, not a category. Moved contents to Compositions by musical composer – ProveIt (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have also marked Compositions by musical composer for merging into list of composers. Scranchuse 23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Musical composer" strikes me as an odd phrase. When I first saw it, I thought it might mean "composer of musicals" (i.e. such as Richard Rodgers or Andrew Lloyd Webber). David Kernow 01:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Reverse Merge. - TexasAndroid 12:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. No longer used/needed. – NKirby 22:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge Category:The University of Southern Mississippi into it. I see no reason to use the definite article. The category is only empty because NKirby unilaterally moved the contents, ie renamed it without seeking consent. Scranchuse 23:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge back as above. --William Allen Simpson 01:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and reverse merge as above. David Kernow 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge back as above.--Mike Selinker 04:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and reverse merge as above. Bhoeble 12:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The legal name of the school is "The University of Southern Mississippi"; see the school's official site. That having been said, however, the definite article is, AFAIK, almost never seen in popular usage. Therefore, my vote is keep and reverse merge per above. — Dale Arnett 03:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Beer categories
- 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 as listed. - TexasAndroid 12:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Brewers and breweries to Category:Beer and breweries by region Discussion on Wiki Beer Project: Agreed umbrella change of name for a set of categories
- Category:Africa Beer and breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Africa
- Category:Asia Beer and breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Asia
- Category:Europe Beer and breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Europe
- Category:North America Beer and Breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in North America
- Category:South America Beer and breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in South America
- Category:Oceania Beer and breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Oceania
- Category:Nigerian breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Nigeria
- Category:Breweries and beverage companies of Hong Kong to Category:Beer and breweries in Hong Kong
- Merge Category:Chinese beer and Category:Chinese breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in China
- Category:Israeli beer to Category:Beer and breweries in Israel
- Category:Japanese breweries to Beer and breweries in Japan
- Category:Beer & Brewery companies of South Korea to Category:Beer and breweries in South Korea
- Category:Philippine Beer to Category:Beer and breweries in the Philippines
- Merge Category:Belgian beer and Category:Belgian breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Belgium
- Merge Category:Dutch beer and Category:Breweries of the Netherlands to Category:Beer and breweries in the Netherlands
- Merge Category:British beer and Category:British breweries to
Category:Beer and breweries in the British Isles- Amendment: Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom - Category:Croatian breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Croatia
- Category:Czech breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in the Czech Republic
- Category:Danish breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Denmark
- Category:Estonian beer to Category:Beer and breweries in Estonia
- Merge Category:German breweries and Category:German beer to Category:Beer and breweries in Germany
- Category:Lithuanian breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Lithuania
- Category:Norwegian breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Norway
- Category:Polish breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Poland
- Merge Category:Scottish beer and Category:Scottish breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Scotland
- Category:Swedish Beer and breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Sweden
- Category:Swiss beer to Category:Beer and breweries in Switzerland
- Merge Category:English beer and Category:English breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in England
- MergeCategory:Australian beer and Category:Australian breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Australia
- Merge Category:American beer and Category:American breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in the United States
- Merge Category:Canadian beer and Category:Canadian breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Canada
- Merge Category:Mexican beers and Category:Mexican breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in Mexico
- Category:Irish breweries to Category:Beer and breweries in the Republic of Ireland
SilkTork 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Yes, yes, please change all of these. I tried this a while back, but not in such a well-done and thorough manner. — BrianSmithson 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I noticed that this area needed looking at a while ago, but actually dealing with it was more hassle than I had time for. Except that the new British cat should probably be called Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom because the UK is a state and "British Isles" is only a physical geography designation. Scranchuse 23:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There doesn't necessarily need to be cats for every country, or every geographical region. Sometimes geographical regions can have more to do with development than political entities, and sometimes it's the other way around. If it's the case with beer inside the UK and Ireland that geography and culture is more relevant than politics, as I would suspect, than I would strongly disagree with that provisio. Blackcap (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support but with the same exception as Scranchuse. Thryduulf 00:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with Scrachuse proviso. And kudos for taking on a badly needed cleanup project. Bearcat 05:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Terminology for Britain is full of problems. Various parts of
Britainthe British Isles, such as Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey don't come under United Kingdom, yet - as far as beer is concerned - the history and development is related. Breweries such as Guinness (Ireland), Okells (Isle of Man), and Randalls (Guernsey) are considered British, yet if we had a United Kingdom cat we'd have to have a separate one for Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. British Isles covers all these. Indeed, British Isles is the only non-political and wholly inclusive term for the region under discussion. Currently Ireland and Isle of Man are listed under the British breweries cat - if we changed to a United Kingdom cat they'd have to be taken out. SilkTork 07:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Terminology for Britain is full of problems. Various parts of
- SilkTork, Ireland is most distinctly not part of Britain (though part of it is part of the UK) and it is frankly odd to suggest that it is. Guinness is most distinctly not a British brewery. Sure, it's related, but not the same, just like Portugal is not Spanish, and Denmark is not Swedish. Unfortunately, as Talk:British Isles will make clear, the term "British Isles" will not function like "Iberia" or "Scandinavia" as an umbrella category. "X of Britain and Ireland" or "British and Irish X" will do (cf the Lions rugby team). (I don't think I'm being too touchy here, but it continually amazes me that intelligent educated British people don't seem to realise that Ireland is a different country.) BrendanH 11:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're correct in saying that terminology for Britain is full of problems, and demonstrate that well by then saying 'Various parts of Britain, such as Ireland...' Ireland is not part of Britain, though it is part of the British Isles. Also, who exactly considers the Guinness brewery to be British?! I'd also question why there's a category of British/British Isles and also a Scottish category (part of the UK of GB&NI), when a separate country (Ireland) apparently doesn't merit one? Bastun 11:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops! Correction made. As for Guinness being considered British, that is all part of the history of and general confusion over these islands and the various terms used to descibe them and the people and political & administrative units that occupy them. Guinness for most of the brewery's history has been under British occupation - its history and development is very much a part of the British Isles as a whole. I wish to avoid any political bias and any potential awkwardness, and have a beer category that encapsules the related and entwined beer and brewing traditions of the whole of the British Isles, which would include the Republic of Ireland in all its various forms over the years. I am aware of the nationalist implications of titles, and do not wish to diminish or hide away any culture, be it Welsh, Manx, Cornish, Scottish, Anglo-Saxon, or Irish in an umbrella term. I have offered up British Isles as the most reasonable solution for the circumstances, as it is a recognised geographic term for the region under discussion and does not carry any political or administrative baggage. As it stands at the moment, Guinness is in Category:Irish breweries which is in Category:British breweries. My proposal is more accurate, fair and non-political than the current situation. SilkTork 14:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the considered response. Like I said above, British Isles is seen as problematic, and British and Irish is recommended as an alternative. Does that lead to a situation with Category:Beer and breweries in Britain and Ireland, containing Category:Beer and breweries in Britain and Category:Beer and breweries in Ireland, where Category:Beer and breweries in Britain contains in turn Category:Beer and breweries in England etc, like so:
Cat:Britain & Ireland /\ / \ Cat:Britain Cat:Ireland /\ / \ Cat:England Cat:Scotland etc.
- I could live with that, if I'm correct in thinking that multiple nesting of categories isn't really a problem, and that proliferation of categories isn't a problem. I may well be wrong on those counts, as I'm not sure I understand the system in all its subtlety.BrendanH 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not on at all. The Britain and Ireland categories are nothing by a pain. The state is the UK and the UK should be the top category as it is for Category:Companies of the United Kingdom and its subcategories. Osomec 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I could live with that, if I'm correct in thinking that multiple nesting of categories isn't really a problem, and that proliferation of categories isn't a problem. I may well be wrong on those counts, as I'm not sure I understand the system in all its subtlety.BrendanH 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Britain is not a formal term and does not cover the Crown Dependencies. British Isles covers the entire area we are talking about quite neatly and without any political bias. As part of the proposal above it should be noted that I have already included Scotland and England which are to be subcats of the British Isles. I hadn't got around to dealing with the Republic of Ireland (now have) nor Wales, Isle of Man, and all the various states which are to be subcats of the USA. Though all those are to be nominated as well as part of the whole uniform approach. I am wondering if people are objecting because they thought that there were to be no subcats? I am so close to this I can see it clearly and forget that other people are not looking through my eyes. We have:
Beer and breweries by region
then:
Beer and breweries in Europe
then:
Beer and breweries in the British Isles
then:
Beer and breweries in the Republic of Ireland
then (if people wish):
Beer and breweries in Leinster
then (if people want to narrow in even more):
Beer and breweries in County Dublin.
I hope this is clear, and will settle people's minds. SilkTork 15:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Concrete suggestion: (1) Category:Beer and breweries in Britain with subcategories including in England, in Scotland and the various dependencies; (2) Category:Beer and breweries in Ireland, and if you feel it is necessary, (3) overarching Category:B&B in Britain and Ireland with 1 and 2 as sub-cats. Even if the various small islands are not part of "Britain", it is only a small fudge to include them there, and it is less problematic than using the British Isles term, which has a history of being objected to. (And it puts Cat:B&B in Ireland as a direct sub-category of Cat:B&B in Europe, as it should be.) BrendanH 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just browsed through Wiki to see how other topics in the British Isles are named and I see that United Kingdom is by far the most common, followed by British. There is no instance, as far as I saw, of British Isles being used. I suppose I preferred British Isles because it is a regional term rather than political, and therefore (I thought) should avoid conflict or bias. United Kingdom, being - for me - a term of political and military dominance of England over Wales and Scotland and Ireland (part of currently, all of at times in the past), I thought that would be the naming convention that most nationalists would object to. As the Wiki naming convention is for United Kingdom, and as people seem to prefer prefer that term, then I will put up no further arguments here. I will instead take the discussion of the naming convention of the British Isles to any noticeboards or projects related to matters of the Isles. SilkTork 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Object no one has even responded to my criticisms on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. This change is badly thought out. The new categories are not sensibly parented: Category:Scottish beer is the current catch-all category for general beer styles, culture etc, parented by Category:Beer and Category:Scotland and the breweries is a subcat, parented by this and companies. "Beer and breweries" is a hybrid category that will look stupid when you browse the category system through companies to more and more subdivisions you will suddenly get to a beer. This is very wrong. Justinc 09:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you feel no one has responded fully. I've just looked back at your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. It's not immediately clear that you are objecting, which may be why there hasn't been a specific response. You made a comment that you felt that Scottish beer was in some way different to other beer in Britain and I did address that issue - though it doesn't actually have any relevance to the current discussion. Your comment "We already have this. Category:Scottish beer is the general category with articles about local styles and history, containing Category:Scottish breweries. Someone broke America, but thats easy to fix." is, as I now understand it, the start of an argument for a different method of categorising beer and breweries. Another comment I have found is: "The advantage of separating them is for parenting on the category system. Breweries are companies and therefore appear under the Companies in Germany etc categories. Beer and breweries is strangely parented from this point of view. One solution would be to put the beers in categories under the brewery (so you have Category Budweiser containing Bud Light or whatever)." And the final relevant comment would be: "Ok I have looked through the category system again, and aparrt from some misclassifications I cant see the problem. Everything is divided into Category:German beer, which covers the regional styles, culture and so on (and can be subclassified for smaller regional divisions), and then that contains a breweries category. As long as people dont classify breweries into the beer category (which they tend to, but its easily fixed) this works well, as the first thing you see is the overview of the regional styles and so on. Some of this is a mess: American beer is a subset of American breweries rather than the other way round, so no wonder people are confused. Also some articles on individual beers which shouldnt have them have proliferated - these need merging back into the breweries. Breweries are verifable companies which can have references. Very few beers are. I spent a long time removing stuff from Category:Brands of beer and much of the stuff there is actually beers that are culturally or historically notable outside the context of the brewery that made them." I have agreed with you that having beer articles floating around unattached to their breweries is unhelpful. We are in accord on that - and this categorising proposal would assist in encouraging people to put beers into breweries, while a category named Beer in *Country* might in fact encourage people to simply talk about their favourite beer from that particular country. I see no immediate advantage in having two different categories for holding articles which are essentially dealing with the same thing: beer produced by a brewery. The "beer" part of the category name would allow general articles on beer in that particular region to be grouped together with articles on the breweries which produce those beers. Individual breweries can still be cat. tagged under Companies or any other business or other cat. which editors might feel relevant. SilkTork 10:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Justinc: it just seems odd to destroy a whole load of "Beer" and "Breweries" categories for no good reason - they both belong to different category hierarchies (for example the "breweries" categories belong to "companies" supercategories - are we to lose that connection?). All you need to do instead for those places with extant separate beer and breweries categories is create the proposed new categories as new parent cats, without destroying the existing ones. I would also like to Support Scrachuse proviso. --Mais oui! 11:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sometimes a beer and a brewery are easily separated and sometimes not, so this approach will produce more consistency. Perhaps some specialised subcategories could be created at the next level down, but this approach is a good way to bring things together. These categories should all be in the national companies categories and there is no problem with that. Bhoeble 12:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeChanged to Weak Support Proposed categories seem overly complicated and in some cases, illogical. Is there really a need for "Super-categories" at continental level? With further sub-division, such as Category:Beer and breweries in the British Isles containing "English" and "Scottish" sub-categories? Bastun 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (Additional comment: I still maintain that the 'super-categories', at least at continental level aren't necessary. I don't see the relevance of a category containing beers/breweries from, say, Turkey and Japan, for instance. But based on Osomenc's comment and provided United Kingdom is used rather than British, the main thrust of the proposal seems fine to me. Changed by Bastun 09:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC) )[reply]- I agree with you on the continent categories, but voting oppose here won't remove them, and will just help to preserve all the existing inconsistencies. If you support the main thrust of the proposal (and you haven't said you don't) could you please consider voting support and then coming back with nominations for any specific categories you have issues with. If everyone who has problems with a few specifics votes "oppose all" none of this mess will get fixed. Osomec 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with ammendment to UK as outlined in my comments here. This whole proposal needs sorting.
Cat:Breweries /\ / \ Cat:UK Cat:RoI /\ / \ Cat:England Cat:Scotland etc.
I see a more logical proposal as I have pictured in the diagram above, thus creating the need for the category Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom, and sub-cats off it if necessary. Adding a category for the British Isles (or for the two main islands "Britain and Ireland) is just another unecessary step to have to go through. --Mal 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I read that as a support vote with use of United Kingdom for the British category, so heading it up with oppose seems misleading. Osomec 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have adjusted my vote on the basis of your comment on my talk page. Cheers. --Mal 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I read that as a support vote with use of United Kingdom for the British category, so heading it up with oppose seems misleading. Osomec 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all with use of "United Kingdom" as discussed. Osomec 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support These often contain much the same things. The breweries categories are company categories so the conventions for company categories apply. Carina22 00:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Use United Kingdom rather than British. Carina22 00:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with amendment to "United Kingdom" Athenaeum 13:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and redundant category. Only entry was an article on a bishop (Leontine T. Kelly), for which it was superfluous (all bishops do or have done some preaching); no explanation for how this category is to be distinguished from the many other categories relating to christian ministry. --BrownHairedGirl 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not my subject - but I just popped four pages in the cat without any problem - and given the long list of preachers and evangelists this could become a very strong and useful category. I'm not sure the difference between an evangelist and a preacher - but as there doesn't appear to a cat for evangelist, this cat should allow for groupings of articles related to both. SilkTork 17:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Are Roman Catholic priests included? Anyone with a mail-order certificate who can "marry and bury"? Are we OK with adding Jesus of Nazareth, Muhammad, Pope Benedict XVI, Martin Luther King Jr., David Koresh, God, Tammy Faye Bakker, and Jim Jones to the category? Why or why not – in objective criteria? Carlossuarez46 20:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again - I don't know this subject, but it would appear that those you list would be be usefully tagged in this category. It may be the case, as Lbbzman suggests, that this cat could be further divided into more specific areas of preaching. There are already examples on wikipedia of people creating lists of preachers - such as this one; and the title of the cat does suggest that the criteria is those who preach rather than those who think. Though, no doubt, there are many who do both. SilkTork 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CategoryRedirect if appropriate. I'd advocate redirecting to Category:Christian ministers if appropriate. That is, only if the term "preacher" is a Christian-only term, which I'm not sure of. If "preacher" can also refer to a non-Christian worship leader, then my vote would be to keep, and have this category become a parent to Christian ministers as well as the equivalent in other religions. Lbbzman 12:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not useful category. Rjensen 16:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 13:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation. An apostrophe indicates a possessive (the DJ's cat was ill). A plural requires no apostrophe (Both of the DJs were nominated for an award) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename 62.31.55.223 23:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename as above. David Kernow 02:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename. As the creator of the category it was simply a matter of not paying attention when I started it. Pally01 07:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (However, disagree with fixing the capitalization of Radio as it forms part of the company's title. Pally01 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Speedy rename,
and while we're at it, fix the capitalization of radio.- EurekaLott 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Whoops, my mistake. Never mind! - EurekaLott 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename and keep the capital as it's the name of the station, see Piccadilly Radio. mattbr30 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, am I allowed to vote delete? It doesn't seem to me to be a very encyclopedic category. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category; empty for over a month. MakeRocketGoNow 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hypester term. Scranchuse 23:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are Category:Cult films, Cult television (which is an article serving also as a cat), Cult radio (same as television), Category:Cult computer and video games, and no doubt others. Perhaps it should be tagged "populate" or "help" or something. SilkTork 17:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Naked Lunch comes to mind as a candidate... Regards, David Kernow 18:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The same comment could be made about the other cult categories. The objective criteria is books which are significantly adored by people are included while books which are not significantly adored by people are excluded. The Bible is a cult book because it is adored. Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives by V. I. Arnold is not a cult book because it is not adored. SilkTork 23:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...although I wouldn't consider the Bible to be a "cult book". Perhaps this category is too tricky to be viable... Regards, David Kernow 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Since at least the 1940s, the approach of orthodox, conservative or fundamentalist Christians was to apply the meaning of cult such that it included those religious groups who used (possibly exclusively) non-standard translations of the Bible." I should think that the Bible is the basis for more cults than any other book, albeit it with non-standard translations, interpretations or uses. This cat could be the basis for a number of articles on the nature of such religious cults influenced by the Bible, as well as more ephemeral cult books. Christianity itself started out as a cult offshoot of the Bible. SilkTork 07:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The same comment could be made about the other cult categories. The objective criteria is books which are significantly adored by people are included while books which are not significantly adored by people are excluded. The Bible is a cult book because it is adored. Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives by V. I. Arnold is not a cult book because it is not adored. SilkTork 23:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Be interesting to see how this develops. Could become a valuable research tool. SilkTork 23:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice against recreation, if and when someone actually wants to put some things into the category. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just popped a few books in there to give people some idea of what to do. SilkTork 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I thought I understood what this was supposed to be about until I saw Recovery from Cults (book) in the category. In what way is this supposed to be similar to Dune (novel)? Yes, it has "cult" in the title, but it's a different sense of the word. (i.e. a controlling and destructive religious or pseudo-religious group, as opposed to an intensely devoted and quirky associated fandom.) If the category can't be given a clear definition, I'll vote delete. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just popped a few books in there to give people some idea of what to do. SilkTork 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are only eight books listed, and none seem to fit the definition of cult status.
- Delete. There's no definition of what makes them cult books. – LGagnon 13:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – there being no response to my comment above, this category is much too vaguely defined to be useful. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially the same as Category:Guided missiles of Israel, seing as how the IDF is Israel's only military. – Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 19:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Esprit15d 19:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Nobunaga24 15:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very difficult to verify, thus difficult to manage, and unencycopedic. The word "fan" is so dubious it's just barely a designation - it could include actors, presidents, serial killers and kids if they just like science fiction. Such cateogories become populated with so many tangentially related ppl that the categories become useless, and the articles get cluttered with categories. But based on new criteria set by Robert A. West, I would support a name change to something along the lines of Category:Science fiction fandom people under Category:Science fiction fandom. --Esprit15d 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. No context, no explanation that could be verified, and most of the articles do not mention science fiction. Ideally we'd have something similar to List of notable Star Trek fans, but we do not need the category in its absence. ×Meegs 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Useful if criteria can be discerned. JonMoore 22:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't classify by hobby. The info will always be incomplete and often dubious. It wouldn't be very important even if all of it could be guaranteed to be complete and accurate. Scranchuse 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 12:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Way too broad. I like the Star Trek one, but not this.--Mike Selinker 16:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Most of these are accurate, and almost all of those I sampled mentioned either fandom or fanzines. I don't see why it's hard to verify; many of the people on the list have biographies or autobiographies; Worldcon publishes membership lists; and fanzine authorship can be verified from the fanzine. Septentrionalis 05:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In some cases, fannishness is the claim to notability. It is silly to deprive an article of its only non-trivial cat. (For sources for some of these, see also Sam Moskowitz's The Immortal Storm.) Septentrionalis 14:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Where else would we categorize people whose principle claim to notability is organizing conventions, running fanzines, etc? Star Trek fandom is a distinct entity from SF fandom – there is crossover, but many people who organize, say, Worldcon, despise Trek. Obviously, categorization should be based on verifiable statements in the bio itself. Where bios do not meet this, they should be fixed or decatted. I have attempted criteria in Category talk:Science fiction fans#Criteria for inclusion. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but restrict application to those notable as SF fans. Alai 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. SF fandom dates back to the 1930s as a popular-cultural institution which significantly influenced and supported the successes and advancements within the genre. Members of SF fandom are properly called "Science fiction fans". The identities and roles of fans across times are very EASY to verify from a number of books and websites devoted to fan history. "Notability", on the other hand, is a POV thing by Wikipedia policy. Biographies of listed fans should be clear enough as to their places in and contributions to the institutions and evolution of Science fiction as a whole. Objections appear to be coming from people who are not familiar with SF fandom or its history; as is too often the case with Wikipedia, decision-making is often in the hands of people who spend too much time nosing around for things to criticize in areas with which they have little or no knowledge. 12.73.196.165 01:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. By proposing this on CfD, Esprit15d stimulated me to write a set of suggested criteria, and we may be able to keep the category useful by not using it for everyone who likes the genre. All to the good.Robert A.West (Talk) 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy you have worked up some criteria - though the Category header seemed plain enough to me - and believe you are showing good faith in so doing. I have a harder time seeing that in a proposal to delete the Category for reasons which are themselves vague and pejoratively so, including an accusation of it being "unencylopedic", along with some of the followup agreement posts. They seem to be written by people with no sense of the reality of the first American, subsequently Amer-Euro-Asian (not sure about Africa), human subculture which is Science fiction fandom and, therefore, of the importance of its populace, Science fiction fans. Putting the Cat up for wholesale deletion rather than proposing criteria, or a clearer header, or ongoing monitoring - not sure that Roger Ebert or Janis Ian belong here, e.g.) is, if not a matter of bad faith, then certainly it is a matter of poor judgment, and it would not be the first Cat to disappear for want of common sense among those who pass by and vote when a deletion is proposed. And, I have been around this site long enough to *assume* nothing. 12.73.195.48 03:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually am a science fiction fan, and write fan fic for some fandoms. Which is unrelated to my nomination. I've expanded my nomination rationale to further explain why I nominated it for deletion (or at least renaming). The criteria added to the page is a step in the right direction.--Esprit15d 12:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good faith accepted. However, I'd observe that putting a Cat up for Deletion wasn't/isn't necessary if criteria for inclusion/exclusion are more to the point. Those can just be added by any interested Wikipedian, and enforced by periodic review of the contents, which is how Wikipedia works anyway. There's no way under the Wiki system to prevent "abuse" of Cats, or articles or lists or anything else, except by periodic policing. 12.73.194.122 03:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually am a science fiction fan, and write fan fic for some fandoms. Which is unrelated to my nomination. I've expanded my nomination rationale to further explain why I nominated it for deletion (or at least renaming). The criteria added to the page is a step in the right direction.--Esprit15d 12:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy you have worked up some criteria - though the Category header seemed plain enough to me - and believe you are showing good faith in so doing. I have a harder time seeing that in a proposal to delete the Category for reasons which are themselves vague and pejoratively so, including an accusation of it being "unencylopedic", along with some of the followup agreement posts. They seem to be written by people with no sense of the reality of the first American, subsequently Amer-Euro-Asian (not sure about Africa), human subculture which is Science fiction fandom and, therefore, of the importance of its populace, Science fiction fans. Putting the Cat up for wholesale deletion rather than proposing criteria, or a clearer header, or ongoing monitoring - not sure that Roger Ebert or Janis Ian belong here, e.g.) is, if not a matter of bad faith, then certainly it is a matter of poor judgment, and it would not be the first Cat to disappear for want of common sense among those who pass by and vote when a deletion is proposed. And, I have been around this site long enough to *assume* nothing. 12.73.195.48 03:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. By proposing this on CfD, Esprit15d stimulated me to write a set of suggested criteria, and we may be able to keep the category useful by not using it for everyone who likes the genre. All to the good.Robert A.West (Talk) 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. --Spasage 12:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Would support a category for fanzine writers and editors. 128.36.90.72 14:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Bad idea. "Fanzine writers and editors" were not the only people in fandom making it work. This is like confining, say, "Americans" to just newspaper editors and reporters.
- Keep with the caveat that it be reserved for those who are notable because of their fandom. --JeffW 16:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename for clarity, to either Category:Science fiction fandom people , or Category:Notable science fiction fans. MakeRocketGoNow 21:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment again, "Notability" is not a Wikipedian standard; it is POV, relative, in the eye of the beholder. The best approach is to define a broad range of specific and concrete (measurable) criteria for inclusion, based on the nature of what SF Fandom was and is all about. 12.73.194.122 03:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 13:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changes too much, meaning it can't (or likely won't) be subst'd, adding to the server load. Also currently unpopulated. Esprit15d 18:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Impossible to know whether it is up to date or not. Most likely very incomplete. Scranchuse 23:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. If not silly, changes too quickly. David Kernow 02:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Some days I feel good. Some days I don't. Some days I change from feeling good to not feeling good, or vice versa, within a single day. It doesn't generally occur to me to update my user page often enough to keep my membership in this category remotely accurate. Delete unless I can create Category:Wikipedians who may or may not feel good at this particular time, so ask directly if for some mysterious reason you need to know. Bearcat 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No one has mentioned unencyclopedic, unverifiable and POV, so I will. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Mayors of X formulation is used elsewhere in Category:Leaders of cities in the United States, and the existing form is miscapitalized. choster 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nom. Mattbr30 21:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nom. Scranchuse 23:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Singleton category. Alai 17:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article in the cat is dependent on the cat, and is a new article. I'm assuming that this cat will grow as the article does name several other positions. Give it time. Build it and they will come. SilkTork 17:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In what sense "dependent"? It'll be perfectly happy in the parent, Category:Spaceflight. I'm assuming that once there actually exists more than one article to put in it, this category might make some sense, and can easily be created, but as it stands, it's worse than useless. Delete. Alai 17:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was consensous not clear enough. - TexasAndroid 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: discussion may be continued on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what is being changed to what is not clear. I'm sorry, but with this complex a set of changes, they really need to be spelled/listed out. Some of these were overlapped by the debates below that were definitely No Consensous. I will encourage the submitter to resubmit as one unbrella debate, not three, and this time listing out exactly what he wants changed. There really is no rush on this. It can easily wait another 7 days. - TexasAndroid 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "subdivision (land)" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is Administrative division or Political division. --William Allen Simpson 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Umbrella – Please make this an umbrella category rename of the subcategories. I'd list all 103 subcategories, but would prefer not to be lynched. Suffice it to say that they all need renaming.
- Support as nominator --William Allen Simpson
- Prefer Administrative divisions. In much more common use than "political divisions" (per Google search), by more authoritative sources (Bartleby, the CIA and Guiness Book), and used more often in the context in which we are using it here, geographical sub-regions of a sovereign state. "Subdivision" is the incorrect term entirely.--Esprit15d 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment statistical regions are not administrative regions. but that is what is sometimes is included in the cats. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support. Only if done consistently. This is only possible if the more neutral term "Administrative Division" is used. As noted below, creating Political Divisions of France doesn't make sense as it is a political unit. The term Administrative Divisions may seem counterintuitive for more federalised countries as Russia, the US and Germany, but it is much more neutral and much easier applied consistently. The Minister of War (Peace) 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree about France. But still think that the overall category be "Political divisions", and using the correct term for federalized countries (such as the US below) makes sense. There's no known reason that every subcategory needs to have the same identical leading words. --William Allen Simpson 01:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, just discovered Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China, that escaped the out of process renaming to "subdivisions" because it was never added into the old heirarchy. --William Allen Simpson 02:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm sorry about this, but if you really are proposing an umbrella name change then you really do have to go and tag all 103 categories and do this properly, giving people due notice. No, you will not get "lynched" - you may well lose the argument but no corporal nor capital punishment will ensue. --Mais oui! 11:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many pardons, I was actually thinking of the tremendous visual load on the reviewers here. But since this very day got Beer categories later in the day, I'll work on posting all 103 entries here. It will take ten to twelve hours, so please be patient. --William Allen Simpson 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that you need to list all the categories here by name (please don't), just tag all the categories so they have notice. --JeffW 01:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain for time being, although currently I prefer "Administrative divisions" as per User:The Minister of War. David Kernow 18:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer "Administrative divisions" as per User:The Minister of War, and note that the US Geonames folks use this as well (for whatever that's worth). Carlossuarez46 20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer "Administrative divisions". "Political divisions by country" sounds like it is about political strife. Carina22 00:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer "Administrative divisions" Mayumashu 12:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Subdivision is an ambiguous and confusing term. Prefer "Administrative divisions". In addition, in Canada, subdivision could also refer to different types of municipalities. Luigizanasi 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- strong oppose please postpone. should be taken with more care. It not only involves 103 subcategories but also their articles and their subcategories. Proposal should be directed to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms first. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now, need to define terms first. I believe that some changes are in order, especially in regards to how we are defining the terms we are using. It is important that we come to a consensus on the usage of terms such as "subdivisions", "administrative divisions".. etc. Though it may seem like nitpicking, these terms, as well as how they relate to nations or states is important. I strongly suggest discussing these issues at WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming#Umbrella terms and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) before any final decesion is made here. -Loren 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) is over. Conradi lost the straw poll there many months ago (last August), refused to conform to consensus, followed by RfC on him (in December), mediation, RfC on the proposed guideline itself, and final incorporation into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) in January. --William Allen Simpson 09:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment would be nice if you link the RfC and the accusations you made there. And also to explain your constant re-insersts of wrong facts and please repeat the judgement that I only speak poor english. I like this, especially if it comes from you. William, you are so nice towards me, from now on you can call me Tobias, which is my firstname (same word order in German as in English). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) is over. Conradi lost the straw poll there many months ago (last August), refused to conform to consensus, followed by RfC on him (in December), mediation, RfC on the proposed guideline itself, and final incorporation into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) in January. --William Allen Simpson 09:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional oppose as per Loren et al. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer "Administrative divisions" as per Carina22 Valentinian (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support "administrative divisions", but only if the renaming of all affected categories and articles is going to be done properly and expeditiously.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Promise – It will be done properly and expeditiously. --William Allen Simpson 09:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – there are two levels, please read the articles (Political division and Administrative division). It is possible to split the category into two levels, too; Category:Political divisions by country with sub-Category:Administrative divisions by country. China and several other countries are already organized this way (see below). --William Allen Simpson 09:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment this is not true. There are Category:Subdivisions of China Category:Administrative divisions of the People's Republic of China and Category:Subdivisons of the Republic of China (missing an i) - were PRC and ROC are regarded as two countries in WP. What are the several other countries you claim are organized this way? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer "Administrative divisions" to "subdivisions" or "political divisions". Kestenbaum 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subdivisions to Administrative divisions
- 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 No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: discussion may be continued on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative divisions are the next level of division under Political division. In short, the previously existing, technically accurate, naming scheme was replaced by inaccurate naming.
- Category:Subdivisions of Afghanistan to Category:Administrative divisions of Afghanistan
- Category:Subdivisions of Albania to Category:Administrative divisions of Albania
- Category:Subdivisions of Armenia to Category:Administrative divisions of Armenia
- Category:Subdivisions of Argentina to Category:Administrative divisions of Argentina
- Category:Subdivisions of Australia to Category:Administrative divisions of Australia
- Category:Subdivisions of Austria to Category:Administrative divisions of Austria
- Category:Subdivisions of Azerbaijan to Category:Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan
- Main article was originally Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan
- Category:Subdivisions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Administrative divisions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Main article was originally Political divisions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but by examination of the content does not appear to be properly named, an expert in the region may be needed for verification.
- Category:Subdivisions of Denmark to Category:Administrative divisions of Denmark
- Category:Subdivisions of Finland to Category:Administrative divisions of Finland
- Main article was originally Administrative divisions of Finland
- Category:Subdivisions of France to Category:Administrative divisions of France.
- Main article was originally Administrative divisions of France. That's technically accurate for France, as France doesn't have states.
- Category:Subdivisions of Germany to Category:Administrative divisions of Germany.
- Main article is List of administrative divisions of Germany
- Category:Subdivisions of Honduras to Category:Administrative divisions of Honduras.
- Category:Subdivisions of Luxembourg to Category:Administrative divisions of Luxembourg.
- Main article is Administrative divisions of Luxembourg
- Category:Subdivisions of Oman to Category:Administrative divisions of Oman
- Category:Subdivisions of Panama to Category:Administrative divisions of Panama
- Category:Subdivisions of Portugal to Category:Administrative divisions of Portugal
- Main article was originally Political divisions of Portugal, but by examination of the content does not appear to be properly named, an expert in the region may be needed for verification.
- Category:Subdivisions of South Korea to Category:Administrative divisions of South Korea.
- Main article is Administrative divisions of South Korea
- Category:Subdivisions of Uganda to Category:Administrative divisions of Uganda
- Category:Subdivisions of Ukraine to Category:Administrative divisions of Ukraine
- Category:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom to Category:Administrative divisions of the United Kingdom
- Category:Subdivisions of Zimbabwe to Category:Administrative divisions of Zimbabwe
- Support as nominator --William Allen Simpson
- Abstain for time being, although currently I believe "Administrative divisions" is more informative than "Subdivisions". David Kernow 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nom. Mayumashu 03:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose would split "subdivisions of XY country" - categories into two cats. please bring this to the project page first. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms. - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the titles of this section is misleading, as people might think ALL subdivisions will be renamed to administrative divisions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now, need to define terms first. I believe that some changes are in order, especially in regards to how we are defining the terms we are using. It is important that we come to a consensus on the usage of terms such as "subdivisions", "administrative divisions".. etc. Though it may seem like nitpicking, these terms, as well as how they relate to nations or states is important. I strongly suggest discussing these issues at WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming#Umbrella terms and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) before any final decesion is made here. -Loren 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional oppose as per Loren et al.; spurious. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as sensible and consistent with my experience in this material. Kestenbaum 00:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subdivisions to Political divisions
- 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 No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: discussion may be continued on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "subdivision (land)" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is Administrative division or Political division.
- Category:Subdivisions of historic countries to Category:Political divisions of historic countries
- Category:Subdivisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Main article is Political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- moved here April 7, 2006 by User:William Allen Simpson [2]
- Template is {{Political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina}}.
- Main article is Political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- Category:Subdivisions of China to Category:Political divisions of China
- Category:Administrative divisions of the People's Republic of China is already a subcategory of this category.
- Main article is Political divisions of China.
- Category:Subdivisions of Serbia and Montenegro to Category:Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro
- Main article is Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro.
- was moved here on April 7, 2006 by User:William Allen Simpson [3]
- Main article is Political divisions of Serbia and Montenegro.
- Category:Subdivisions of the United States to Category:Political divisions of the United States
- Apparently, this was the long-standing name of the category (see history undeleted for review), and deleted without going through the CfR process.
- Projects in Category:U.S. Political Divisions WikiProjects.
- Template is {{USPoliticalDivisions}}, recently moved (and redirected) from {{United States political divisions}}.
- Category:Subdivisions of Venezuela to Category:Political divisions of Venezuela
- Main article was originally Political Division of Venezuela, then moved to Political division of Venezuela, but should be "Political divisions ..." instead.
- Template is {{Administrative divisions of Venezuela}}, but should be moved to "Political divisions ..." instead.
- was States of Venezuela then, Subdivisions of Venezuela [4]
- Support as nominator. --William Allen Simpson 16:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer "Administrative divisions"--Esprit15d 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. See above The Minister of War (Peace) 21:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer "Administrative Divisions". Striking earlier support; the original nomination for rename mentioned that the term should be "Administrative Divisions" or "Political Divisions, but the idea now seems to be to use different terms, which is a bad idea. The technical accuracy argument is only valid for the US, but it will be a horribly subjective affair applying this to other countries (does The Netherlands have Administrative or Political divisions?). Let's pick one term, and stick with it. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain although at present I'd prefer "Administrative divisions" to "Political divisions". David Kernow 18:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer "Administrative divisions", "Second-level administrative divisions", "Third-level administrative divisions", etc., and note that the US Geonames folks use this as well (for whatever that's worth). Carlossuarez46 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prefer "Administrative divisions" Mayumashu 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – my preference is technical accuracy over convenience, these have been identified as properly named, due to the independence of the next level divisions. --William Allen Simpson 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose would split "subdivisions of XY country" - categories into two cats. please bring this to the project page first.
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms first. - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now, need to define terms first. I believe that some changes are in order, especially in regards to how we are defining the terms we are using. It is important that we come to a consensus on the usage of terms such as "subdivisions", "administrative divisions".. etc. Though it may seem like nitpicking, these terms, as well as how they relate to nations or states is important. I strongly suggest discussing these issues at WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming#Umbrella terms and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) before any final decesion is made here. -Loren 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The terminology is certainly important. But the discussion is already here, why put it there? I have posted messages on those pages to invite people to discuss it here instead. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sounds good. My main concern at the moment is the relation of subdivisions/administrative divisions to the state/country they're being listed as a part of. While this isn't a problem with most regions it does pose a significant challenge in regions where more then one state with the same name exists (i.e. North and South Korea, the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan), the Republic of Congo and the Dem. Republic of Congo... etc). Do we crosslist subcategories from each of the states under a single geographic region? Or do we list administrative regions solely under categories for each state (affairs of state being restricted to the state they relate to, my personal POV)? I'm sure there are other issues in terms of wording that other people could bring up for discussion. -Loren 08:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment terminology discussion should not go to an obscure CfD page. terminology also applies to to articles. The best thing IMO is to improve the umbrella term articles (Administrative division, Political division, Country subdivision, Subnational entity) or to discuss the matter on the related project page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The terminology is certainly important. But the discussion is already here, why put it there? I have posted messages on those pages to invite people to discuss it here instead. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional oppose as per Loren et al.; spurious. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How about Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo. This should deal with the problem of what is an admin vs a a political division, so we do not need to make a judgment. Referring to a Canadian province and a US or Australian state as an Administrative division somehow seems wrong, while counties, municipalities, regions, etc, are clearly "administrative" and not political. "Subdivision" just sounds wrong". Luigizanasi 05:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if it just sounds wrong, then wait a while and you get used to it ;-). Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo is quite long and may become longer if one implements a subcat with historic divisions only. And then replace Foo by Democratic Republic of the Congo. Furthermore this would not cover areas just set up for statistical purpose. (The official Regions of Brazil). I made a stub about Country subdivisions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't believe that Wikipedia should be in the business of inventing new meanings for words. A "subdivision" means that something that was divided is divided again. In my Canadian geographical context, subdivision can mean to things: either a suburban neighbourhood where a piece of farmland was subdivided into individual plots, or in the context of Statistics Canada where a Census division is a, well, division of a province into counties or similar areas, and a Census subdivision is some form of municipality, Indian Reserve or unorganized territory. Using "subdivision" for Canadian provinces completely violates the principle of least astonishment. When I first saw provinces or counties referred to as subdivisions, I must say I was astonished at a novel use of the word. Dictionaries did confirm that my astonishment was justified. Political or administrative divisions (your pick or both, I'm not particularly hung up on either), on the other hand, are clear terms for what is meant here. Let us not forget that Wikipedia is not for the convenience of editors, but for the public using it, and misusing the term subdivision will only confuse potential readers. Luigizanasi 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment agree, the "sub" is kind of strange. But this would better go to linguists first, since language not allways is 100% logical. I will add a notion about the non-logic into Country subdivision. Please help to improve the article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not about logic, it's about usage and the meaning of words in the English language, and . "Subdivision" on its own in this context simply does not mean what you intend it to mean. "Administrative division" and "political division" do, as do "political subdivision" or "administrative subdivision" for that matter. But "subdivision of Foo" on its own does not, it is just confusing to an English-speaking user and a misuse of the word. Check with any dictionary. Luigizanasi 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- what do I intend? Do I intend to mean administrative divisions and political divisions only? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not about logic, it's about usage and the meaning of words in the English language, and . "Subdivision" on its own in this context simply does not mean what you intend it to mean. "Administrative division" and "political division" do, as do "political subdivision" or "administrative subdivision" for that matter. But "subdivision of Foo" on its own does not, it is just confusing to an English-speaking user and a misuse of the word. Check with any dictionary. Luigizanasi 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment agree, the "sub" is kind of strange. But this would better go to linguists first, since language not allways is 100% logical. I will add a notion about the non-logic into Country subdivision. Please help to improve the article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't believe that Wikipedia should be in the business of inventing new meanings for words. A "subdivision" means that something that was divided is divided again. In my Canadian geographical context, subdivision can mean to things: either a suburban neighbourhood where a piece of farmland was subdivided into individual plots, or in the context of Statistics Canada where a Census division is a, well, division of a province into counties or similar areas, and a Census subdivision is some form of municipality, Indian Reserve or unorganized territory. Using "subdivision" for Canadian provinces completely violates the principle of least astonishment. When I first saw provinces or counties referred to as subdivisions, I must say I was astonished at a novel use of the word. Dictionaries did confirm that my astonishment was justified. Political or administrative divisions (your pick or both, I'm not particularly hung up on either), on the other hand, are clear terms for what is meant here. Let us not forget that Wikipedia is not for the convenience of editors, but for the public using it, and misusing the term subdivision will only confuse potential readers. Luigizanasi 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if it just sounds wrong, then wait a while and you get used to it ;-). Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo is quite long and may become longer if one implements a subcat with historic divisions only. And then replace Foo by Democratic Republic of the Congo. Furthermore this would not cover areas just set up for statistical purpose. (The official Regions of Brazil). I made a stub about Country subdivisions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Agree with Luigizanasi. Yesterday, Conradi just moved and renamed dozens of pages to conform to his newly made-up term "Country subdivisions", that he found in one ISO document. Heck, he renamed his own {{subnational entity}}, that he's been sticking onto everything. The world is not "organized" and "logical". This is an encyclopedia! It should document reality, in the accepted and established political science terminology, not try to force the entire world into a mold. --William Allen Simpson 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did found the term actually in three ISO documents. How is the term newly made up if it exists in three ISO documents? Why is it my term? You can also check the history of all the Subdivisions of XY articles and categories - you may find some hints that the term was used for example in 2004-09-19 when Category:Subdivisions_of_Finland was created. Can you tell me how many dozens of pages I moved and renamed in your opinion? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Near as I can tell, ISO 3166 uses Country subdivision, not "Subdivision" on its own. If we are to use the awkward ISO terminology, the it should be Category:Country subdivisions of Foo. "Sudivision" on its own & by itself does not convey the meaning of administrative/political divisions/subdivisions / sub-national entities. When I see "Subdivisions of Foo", I take it to mean minor suburban neighbourhouds in Foo. Luigizanasi 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I suggest to read the title of ISO 3166 again. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. I suggest you read it again, more carefully this time. You might want to ponder why the title is Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions, and not Codes for the representation of names of countries and subdivisions, and why the subtitle of the relevant section is Part 2: Country subdivision code and not simply Part 2: Subdivision code. It might help to look up adjective, possessive pronoun, possessive adjective and determinative possessive pronouns. Sorry, but "subdivision" on its own without a qualifying attributive adjective or noun simply does not mean the same thing as political/administrative division/subdivision, and its use in that way will only confuse people. Luigizanasi 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment responded at Talk:Country subdivision Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. I suggest you read it again, more carefully this time. You might want to ponder why the title is Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions, and not Codes for the representation of names of countries and subdivisions, and why the subtitle of the relevant section is Part 2: Country subdivision code and not simply Part 2: Subdivision code. It might help to look up adjective, possessive pronoun, possessive adjective and determinative possessive pronouns. Sorry, but "subdivision" on its own without a qualifying attributive adjective or noun simply does not mean the same thing as political/administrative division/subdivision, and its use in that way will only confuse people. Luigizanasi 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I suggest to read the title of ISO 3166 again. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Near as I can tell, ISO 3166 uses Country subdivision, not "Subdivision" on its own. If we are to use the awkward ISO terminology, the it should be Category:Country subdivisions of Foo. "Sudivision" on its own & by itself does not convey the meaning of administrative/political divisions/subdivisions / sub-national entities. When I see "Subdivisions of Foo", I take it to mean minor suburban neighbourhouds in Foo. Luigizanasi 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- William's statement Heck, he renamed his own {{subnational entity}}, that he's been sticking onto everything. - is wrong in at least two aspects, maybe three. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did found the term actually in three ISO documents. How is the term newly made up if it exists in three ISO documents? Why is it my term? You can also check the history of all the Subdivisions of XY articles and categories - you may find some hints that the term was used for example in 2004-09-19 when Category:Subdivisions_of_Finland was created. Can you tell me how many dozens of pages I moved and renamed in your opinion? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No prejedice against creating the more properly named named Category:Wikipedians who play volleyball or similar. But if the new name is created, it will need to be populated or it will likely end up right back here. - TexasAndroid 19:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Wikipedia specific category for user pages Pak21 16:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Empty and undesirable. Bhoeble 16:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Query how is this different from Category:User instruments and subcategories, and numerous other special-interest User categories? Powers 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a subcat of Category:Volleyball, an article-space category. This can obviously be fixed without a delete though; if anyone does that, they might like to fix up Template:User Volleyball Player as well, which was including lots of user pages in Category:Volleyball until earlier today. This is just trying to fix the mess that was created from all that. Cheers --Pak21 16:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Possibly empty due to Wikipedians not yet finding it. I intended this to help volleyball players
find each other for any possible questions for about the history or rules of the sport. I do have to reword the category however, as I forget to put "Wikipedians that are" in the category assignment. --Masssiveego 22:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, then, rename to "Wikipedians who play volleyball". David Kernow 02:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If somebody's going to fix this category up so it's populated and in the right place, by all means keep it. If they're not, let's get it out of the way. --Pak21 10:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is empty and redundant to the populated and probably better named Category:Hill Stations of Pakistan. Thryduulf 15:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Powers 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- merge per nominator. Bhoeble 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom, although is "Hill Stations" a proper noun? David Kernow 02:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is at Hill station and starts "A hill station or Hill Station...", it consistently uses a lowercase 's', including "Hill stations in Pakistan". I have no opinion on it either way, I just spotted the duplication when looking at Category:Pakistan. Thryduulf 12:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Each maybe called "[Placename] Hill Station" or the like, but as a group I think they'd be referred to as "Pakistani hill stations" or "Hill stations of Pakistan". Either of these two names seems fine to me. Regards, David Kernow 02:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it will probably be best to rename it to category:Hill stations of Pakistan, but I suggest that we wait until this CfD is completed to avoid confusion. Thryduulf 02:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. "Hill Stations of Pakistan" replaces this old one. --Spasage 06:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete and then category:Hill stations of Pakistan Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are two tangentially related things that isn't encyclopedic and is very difficult to manage since it's difficult to verify. Esprit15d 14:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. The article List of notable Star Trek fans is sufficient, I think. Powers 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this category and the equally trivial Category:Science fiction fans. - EurekaLott 17:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- O please delete Category:Science fiction fans; that's even worse.--Esprit15d 17:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. List, with its explanations, is far superior. Note: Science fiction fans has been nominated above. ×Meegs 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Selinker's proposal below to rename is fine with me too. ×Meegs 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm the category's creator. I created this category initially to house people such as Gabriel Koerner and Bjo Trimble who are defined by their Star Trek fandom. Others have been added who are conjectural. I would advocate their removal. JonMoore 20:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever happens, this category should be cleaned out. Tom Hanks and Eddie Murphy make no sense here.--Mike Selinker 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename is fine as per Mike's proposal. Really, if we got rid of this category and the science fiction fans one, there would be some notable Trekkies would not be in any category but their year of birth... JonMoore 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Trekkies. The only reason I propose this is that I don't want to have parallel categories for M*A*S*H fans and the like, but this particular group of fans is eminently notable and deserves its own category.--Mike Selinker 14:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the list is fine, we don't need a cat. Carlossuarez46 20:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per Mike's proposal. We need to have some category to put people who's only claim to fame is Trekkiedom. --JeffW 16:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge. - TexasAndroid 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories ordered into a hierarchical structure and one is redundant. – Domino theory 11:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Historical empires into Empires and kingdoms. A rename isn't going to work because the latter already exists. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per nom. Bhoeble 16:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. David Kernow 02:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdoms is empty and already redundant compared with the non trivial dichotomy of Monarchy/Monarchies. – Domino theory 10:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Even the Kingdom article is a disambiguation page pointing to Monarchy. No need for a category similarly named. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was reverse merge. - TexasAndroid 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the two categories are about the same thing --Melaen 10:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Category:Fictional plant species into Category:Fictional plants. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps FP is intended for individual plants and to be a subcategory of FPS? - choster 13:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was actually thinking the reverse. =) Powers 13:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose it seemst that fict-plants should be for individual plants, while the other should serve as a plant-type reservoir. 132.205.44.134 22:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Category:Fictional plant species into Category:Fictional plants. I don't want to have to subdivide fictional trees into two categories, for example.--Mike Selinker 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Mike. Comment should be added that category includes both individual plants and species. --JeffW 16:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 13:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviation and form to match parent cat. Vegaswikian 06:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abbreviation and form to match parent cat. Vegaswikian 05:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom (You beat me to it) --Nobunaga24 06:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom.--Esprit15d 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Too many adjectival words? Category:National Guard units of the United States Army...? David Kernow 02:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Syrthiss 15:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense category entry DVD+ R/W 04:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfunny joke. Hawkestone 04:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ditto MikeHobday 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as G1: Patent Nonsense.
- Speedy delete. per nom--Esprit15d 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. David Kernow 02:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy this crap. Bearcat 04:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Merge. - TexasAndroid 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant, see Category:Members of the United States armed forces – ProveIt (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - see United States Army soldiers --Nobunaga24 04:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Category:Members of the United States armed forces. While the use of the word "soldiers" appears to make it redundant with the Army category, it's clear that the category under consideration is being used as a generic catchall for articles related to all the military branches. Those articles should be under the "Members of the..." category. Also let Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history know that they may want to move their project tag from the cateogry under consideration to the proper category. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- merge Rjensen 16:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not very useful ... ProveIt (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can see this becoming 50 categories with one, or two at best, articles each. There is already a National Guard category with some subcategories that for now seem adequate.--Nobunaga24 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Nobunaga24. Also alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Separate Battalions of the United States Army to Category:Battalions of the United States Army
- 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. - TexasAndroid 13:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Makes category a bit more inclusive; calling it "Separate Battalions" leaves out some units, such as the different Ranger battalions, which are not separate battalions, but worthy of articles in their own right. Currently they are categorized under Category:United States Army units which is a very general classification covering everything from a 5 man fire team to an army group Nobunaga24 02:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - why not simply create the Battalions category and make Separate Battalions a subcategory? - choster 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if the phrase "Separate Battalion" is even in army usage. I've never heard it, and I was in a few battalions that didn't belong to a higher regiment. I know separate brigade is used. Separate would indicate, I believe, the lack of a higher HQ that the unit type would typically belong too - brigades fall under divisions, but separate brigades do not fall under divisions. A lot of these battalions have a brigade or brigade-sized higher HQ, whether it's a DISCOM, or Support Group, etc. --Nobunaga24 04:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an additional note - the phrase "separate battalion", when searched on .mil websites, produces 430 hits, and on .army.mil 313 hits, and almost all of these, from what I have looked at, refer to historical names of units, i.e. "107th Separate Battalion, Coast Artillery". I think the designation is no longer used. --Nobunaga24 04:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename so long as designation "Separate Batallion" no longer in use. David Kernow 02:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Infantry divisions of the United States to Category:Infantry divisions of the United States Army
- 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. - TexasAndroid 13:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - More specific category name, brings in line with other unit naming conventions Nobunaga24 02:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emty category. Ingoolemo talk 02:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At first blush, seems like it'd be useful. If it was useful, though, it'd have something there. Look at Category:Attack aircraft for an example of what it'd look like if it was actually used. Also, Template:Military aircraft types doesn't include "Strike aircraft" as a category. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CategoryRedirect to Attack aircraft 132.205.44.134 22:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Merge then) redirect to Category:Attack aircraft. David Kernow 02:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Armored divisions of the United States to Category:Armored divisions of the United States Army
- 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. - TexasAndroid 13:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - More specific category name, brings in line with other unit naming conventions Nobunaga24 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no criteria/description given what what constitutes this category. What was in this category was three army units, but I couldn't ascertain why those units out of hundreds were in the category, so I removed them. Nobunaga24 02:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, with the caveat that we probably should have left the articles in the category until the result of the CfD discussion is known. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists based on political opinion (not affiliation) are hopelessly vague. Are these people actively against the war or just expressed disapproval of the war? It can't be the latter as that would be hopelessly large and useless. Where should the line be drawn? Fundamentally, it goes against the notion of an encyclopedia, which is to explain people's nuances, rather than categorize them like insects. --Mmx1 01:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Nobunaga24 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and reposition. I think that this category is useful, but very poorly positioned on Wikipedia. We're currently working on renaming Category:Anti-war people to Category:Anti-war activists, and it seems that consensus exists to make this rename happen. If we renamed this category to Category:Anti Iraq War activists and made it a subcategory of Category:Anti-war activists, that would narrow the focus and make it a useful subdivision of a big category. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm thinking Category:Anti Iraq War activists should be a new one and not simply a rename of this one, since it's much more limited in scope. (Lots of people are against the war without being active about opposing it.) Powers 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per Schuminweb. We've already been usually tacitly treating this as Category:Anti Iraq War activists, if you look at who's on it. It'll need clean-up but deletion and re-creation would be more work. Kalkin 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as above. Thryduulf 16:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepAnti Iraq War activists doesn't quiet describe some of these people as per their not being activists. 132.241.246.111 20:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Anti Iraq War activists and remove people who don't fit. Scranchuse 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Will we want to categorize the "Pro-" people too consistent with NPOV. And whatabout the people who have changed opinions over time, do they get categorized in both? Carlossuarez46 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but there isn't really a 'pro-war movement' or 'pro-war activists' in the same sense that there is an anti-war movement, describing itself as such. Most people who are pro-war do not define their politics as such, see themselves as part of a unified movement, or spend the majority of their political energy on a single issue. Kalkin 22:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per Schuminweb. --JeffW 16:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strict count is 4 - Delete, 7 - rename, 2 - Keep as-is. - TexasAndroid 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopelessly POV category, and even if we could agree on what constitutes a "Culture War Issue", I don't see the usefulness of the category, either. Powers 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Hawkestone 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename to
American "Culture War" issuesUnited States Culture War issues (per Thryduulf). While I do foresee some NPOV issues, I believe some reasonable criteria could be applied to what belongs here. Since there is a culture war article that has been able to establish events and issues that have evoked the "culture war" designation, things mentioned there (and their related articles) would be suitable candidates for this category. I glanced through the cat, and everything there I would have no objection including (except maybe public nudity - is that really in any kind of substantial dispute?). It's more apparent than it would initially seem about what constitutes a "culture war" issue: Iraq War? No. Gay marriage? Yes. I think this is a case of the proof is in the pudding in whether or not appropriate items will be placed there. And to address usefulness, it would group items that have lead to the evolution of US social norms.--Esprit15d 14:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Keep and Rename to Category:United States Culture War issues as per Category talk:Issue in the Culture Wars. Thryduulf 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support that name change as well.--Esprit15d 17:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename to something making it US specific, since that is what the term culture war usually refers to (as far as I know). The Ungovernable Force 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete The current name is too vague and informal an a good number of these topics are not U.S. specific so having them in a U.S. category is inappropriate. The U.S. has no better claim over articles on global topics than any other country. Bhoeble 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the majority are US specific. Examples: Affirmative action, Bush-Blair memo, Capital punishment in Texas, Don't ask don't tell, English-only movement, Media bias in the United States, Pledge of Allegiance Criticism, and many more. There are a some that are more universal (Homosexuality) but, individual articles could be removed, or replaced with US specific articles (like Gay rights in the United States) after some discussion on the article's talk page.--Esprit15d 15:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I started the category some months back as a way of connecting political issues that were relatable only in that they were "culture war" issues. I don't see the category as being hopelessly POV, though I think it requires significant editorial restraint and oversight to prevent POV-pushers from imposing arbitrary agenda. --ScienceApologist 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not just worried about NPOV, but also original research. The dispute on what should be included (eg nudity) is an indicator that original research is being done. Andjam 12:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP and rename. It has been a major political issue for 20+ years and needs thorough coverage. Rjensen 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note User:Esprit15d thinks that it is "apparent" that the Iraq war is not a culture war issue, but later lists Bush-Blair memo (a war issue) as an item listed in the culture war category. If a single person cannot agree what is a culture war issue, how can wikipedia? Andjam 04:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: There're two issues covered in this cat (both of which I addressed separately): culture and the US. The Bush-Blair memo is a US issue (yes), but not a culture issue, so it doesn't belong there. I think that's pretty clear. I really don't really know what more to say.--Esprit15d 13:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe I just don't understand the term "Culture War". The Culture War article does little to explain it. To me this seems like an indiscriminate collection of articles that involve some sort of political or social controversy. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am, we need a much clearer definition of "culture war" and the issues that belong to it. Powers 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that. There are several books and sources that "legitimized" the term, and stronger reference to such sources can be made in the article, which I (and others I'm sure) can incorporate more cohesively.--Esprit15d 13:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per Esprit. 128.36.90.72 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, though I think it should be "Issues" not "Issue" Guettarda 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename to Category:United States Culture War issues, or something along those lines. •Jim62sch• 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a useful cat. Where's the POV? FeloniousMonk 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The POV is in determining what constitutes a Culture War issue. Given the amorphous definition of the term itself, I don't see how any one issue can be classified as unambiguously a member. Further, even if the POV argument isn't compelling enough, I just don't see the usefulness of grouping Intelligent design with Public nudity and English-only movement. Maybe you can explain it to me. Powers 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the category can seem arbitrary, but that's part of the particular raison d'être for categorizing in the first place. There is nothing more NPOV than an arbitrary categorization where the meaning is stripped from the category (no one is taking sides as to which political position is "correct", the category just declares the issues to be of a particular volatile sort). Connections are drawn elsewhere so this type of categorization is not novel to Wikipedia. E.g., there are a number of conservative groups that draw comparisons between loose morals (i.e. public nudity – though I'm not aware of a cited statement that this is part of the culture wars – but I digress) and the acceptance of evolution in the public school system (i.e. intelligent design controversy). As well, a good portion of these pundits also believe that America is the "beacon on the hill" and its monolithic language is patriotically worth preserving against invasion (i.e. English-only movement). The "culture war" language is adopted to summarize the beseiged and aggressive approach to this discourse. The polarization and false-dichotomization of the American political system has resulted recently in a claim of a bifurcation between cultures (e.g. "red state culture" and "blue state culture", "coastal elitism" and "heartland", "cities" and "rural", "religious" and "secular", etc.) that is embraced by commentators with varied perspectives. Yes, the current culture war article could expand a lot more on this, but the political issues labeled as "culture wars" are in principle neutrally observable. Yes, there are issues with inappropriate categorization of articles, but all that should be required to adequately categorize a particular article is a reference to a notable commentator who claims that the issue is representative of the culture wars. Such quotes are fairly easy to come by these days. --ScienceApologist 05:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 17:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article trying to be a category ProveIt (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No prejudice against recreation as an article, ideally with fewer redlinks. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 16:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I usually vote for this things to be moved to an article, but there's no substance. He should start a project (either personally or with WP) to create these articles. Until then, this needs to be deleted.--Esprit15d 18:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; features incorrect capitalization anyway. David Kernow 02:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unresolved after seven days
See /unresolved and /unresolved/Ongoing and Wikipedia:Unresolved after seven days.
Cleanup overhead
If process guidelines are met, move categories to the appropriate section here to prepare to delete.
Before deleting a category, please ensure that it is empty.
Please help keep this page clean! Listings that have already been dealt with need to be removed quickly.
Contents
- 1 How to nominate a category for discussion
- 2 Redirecting categories
- 3 Special notes
- 4 Speedy renaming and merging
- 5 Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here
- 6 Ready for deletion
- 7 Discussions
- 7.1 April 12
- 7.1.1 Category:Abhorsen series
- 7.1.2 Category:Calvin Klein Models and Category:Versace Models
- 7.1.3 Category:Technical edit
- 7.1.4 Category:Astronomy events to Category:Astronomical events
- 7.1.5 Category:Forensic artist to Category:Forensic artists
- 7.1.6 Category:Courtroom Sketch Artist to Category:Courtroom sketch artists
- 7.1.7 Category:People who represented themselves in court to Category:Litigants in person
- 7.1.8 Sezione di Roma
- 7.1.8.1 Category:Monuments and sights of Rome to Category:Visitor attractions in Rome
- 7.1.8.2 Category:Streets and Roads of Rome to Category:Streets of Rome
- 7.1.8.3 Category:Piazzi (piazzas) of Rome to Category:Piazzas of Rome
- 7.1.8.4 Category:Churches and chapels of Rome to Category:Churches in Rome
- 7.1.8.5 Category:Chapels of Rome to Category:Chapels in Rome
- 7.1.8.6 Category:Tombs and cemeteries of Rome to Category:Cemeteries and tombs in Rome
- 7.1.8.7 Category:Fountains of Rome to Category:Fountains in Rome; Category:Villas of Rome to Category:Villas in Rome;
Category:Amphitheatres of Rome to Category:Amphitheatres in Rome - 7.1.8.8 Category:Palazzi, palaces and villas of Rome
- 7.1.8.9 Merge Category:Palaces (ancient and modern) of Rome with Category:Palaces in Rome; Rename Category:Bridges (ancient and modern) in Rome to Category:Bridges in Rome
- 7.1.8.10 Category:Columns, monumental of Rome to Category:Monumental columns in Rome
- 7.1.8.11 Category:Ancient Monuments of Rome to Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Rome
- 7.1.8.12 Grazie per la visita!
- 7.1.9 Category:Peel Sessions to Category:John Peel
- 7.1.10 Category:Artists who recorded Peel Sessions to Category:Peel Sessions artists
- 7.1.11 Category:One day international cricket to Category:One-day international cricket
- 7.1.12 White hip hop musicians, rappers, and groups
- 7.1.13 Category:Tasmanian cricketers
- 7.1.14 Category:PC Engine games
- 7.1.15 Cricketers by skill
- 7.1.16 2 Protected Areas of the United States categories
- 7.1.17 Category:Northern Ireland laws to Category:Northern Irish laws
- 7.1.18 Category:Cricket subcategories
- 7.1.19 Category:Hong Kong attractions to Category:Visitor attractions in Hong Kong
- 7.1.20 Category:Chemical
- 7.1.21 Category:Queen's University, Canada to Category:Queen's University
- 7.1.22 Category:Third Lanark F.C. managers
- 7.1.23 Category:Television programmes set in Newcastle
- 7.1.24 Category:Indian government and military stubs
- 7.1.25 Category:Competency Modeling
- 7.1.26 Category:Independence movement of Pakistan
- 7.1.27 Category:EPrint Archive
- 7.1.28 Category:Calgary Transit
- 7.1.29 Category:CIA World Factbook, 2004
- 7.1.30 Category:World War II ships to Category:World War II naval ships
- 7.1.31 Category:Paint
- 7.1.32 Category:Spiritual Sequels
- 7.2 April 11
- 7.2.1 Category:NCFCA Clubs
- 7.2.2 Category:Musical genres to Category:Music genres
- 7.2.3 Category:English speaking countries to Category:Countries where English is spoken
- 7.2.4 Category:Lucky/unlucky things or events to Category:Luck
- 7.2.5 Category:Catholic philosophers to Category:Roman Catholic philosophers
- 7.2.6 Category:Australian organizations to Category:Australian organisations
- 7.2.7 Category:Chinese language films to Category:Chinese-language films or Category:Films in Chinese
- 7.2.8 Category:Films in Cantonese to Category:Cantonese-language films or Category:Cantonese films or Keep
- 7.2.9 Category:Films by language
- 7.2.10 Category:Rome (television) to Category:Rome (TV series)
- 7.2.11 Category:United Kingdom law enforcement agencies to Category:Law enforcement agencies of the United Kingdom
- 7.2.12 Category:US rail stubs → Category:United States rail stubs
- 7.2.13 Category:Tenpin Bowling Magazines to Category:Ten-pin bowling magazines
- 7.2.14 Category:World Leading Ten-pin Bowlers
- 7.2.15 Category:Mycology to Category:Fungi
- 7.2.16 Category:Kids' Choice Awards hosts
- 7.2.17 Category:DJ Danger Mouse albums to Category:Danger Mouse albums
- 7.2.18 Category:European sport to Category:Sport in Europe
- 7.2.19 Category:Former country subdivisions
- 7.2.20 Category:Indian Bishops to Category:Indian bishops
- 7.2.21 Merge Category:Singles by popularity to Category:Singles
- 7.2.22 Delete Category:New Zealand top 10 singles
- 7.2.23 Delete Category:Australian top 10 singles
- 7.2.24 Category:Capitol Broadcasting Company Stations
- 7.2.25 Category:Clear Channel Communications Station
- 7.2.26 Category:Commercial systems for Computer vision
- 7.2.27 Category:History of Azerbaijan/Azerbaijani Atabek State
- 7.2.28 Category:Hong Kong comparative education researchers
- 7.2.29 Category:Kansas City Chiefs (baseball) players
- 7.2.30 Category:Kentucky Derby Winners (racehorse)
- 7.2.31 Category:La Liga Primera División clubs
- 7.2.32 Category:Maricopa Community Colleges
- 7.2.33 Category:Mary J Blige
- 7.2.34 Category:Metropolitan areas in Belgium
- 7.2.35 Category:Metropolitan areas in Finland
- 7.2.36 Category:Metropolitan areas in France
- 7.2.37 Category:Metropolitan areas in Germany
- 7.2.38 Category:Metropolitan areas in Japan
- 7.2.39 Category:Metropolitan areas in Portugal
- 7.2.40 Category:People in Computer vision
- 7.2.41 Category:Political Parties in Sabah
- 7.2.42 Category:Royal League seasons
- 7.2.43 Category:Shildon
- 7.2.44 Category:Software for Computer vision
- 7.3 April 10
- 7.3.1 Category:Mariah Carey Films
- 7.3.2 Category:Viribus Unitis class battleships
- 7.3.3 Category:Washington highways
- 7.3.4 Category:Queen's University, Belfast to Category:Queen's University of Belfast
- 7.3.5 Category:Role Models
- 7.3.6 Category:Cleveland Indians (football) players
- 7.3.7 Category:Queen's University, Canada alumni to Category:Queen's University alumni
- 7.3.8 Category:IAS to Category:International Accounting StandardsCategory:IFRS to Category:International Financial Reporting Standards
Category:GAAP to Category:Generally Accepted Accounting Principles - 7.3.9 Category:Accounting to Category:Accountancy
- 7.3.10 Category:Accounting Miscellaneous
- 7.3.11 Category:Mass media in the Republic of China to Category:Media of the Republic of China
- 7.3.12 Category:Self-declared Emperors
- 7.3.13 Category:Ramsar sites of Pakistan
- 7.3.14 Category:The West Wing
- 7.3.15 Category:Rome (television) Characters
- 7.3.16 Category:People of the French Revolution executed by guillotine
- 7.3.17 Category:Professional Wrestling venues
- 7.3.18 Category:Edible flowers
- 7.3.19 Category:Rosenborg players
- 7.3.20 Category:Railway Stations in East Renfrewshire
- 7.3.21 Category:Byzantine sites of Puglia
- 7.3.22 Category:Personal and Social Transformation
- 7.3.23 Category:Irish MPs to Category:Members of the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland
- 7.3.24 Category:Wars of Independence to Category:Wars of independence
- 7.3.25 Category:Canadian Britons
- 7.3.26 Category:Child killers to Category:Convicted child murderers
- 7.3.27 Category:Well-known foreign residents of China
- 7.3.28 Category:Soreal Entertainment
- 7.4 April 9
- 7.4.1 Category:Stampede Wrestling Alumni
- 7.4.2 subcategories of Category:Computer vision
- 7.4.3 Category:Bongo Flava to Category:Tanzanian hip hop musicians
- 7.4.4 Category:British MPs
- 7.4.5 Category:Female Digimon
- 7.4.6 Category:Halo 2 Weapons
- 7.4.7 Category:Buildings duplicated at Legoland, Windsor
- 7.4.8 Category:Scottish MPs to Category:Members of the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament
- 7.4.9 Australian Rules categories
- 7.4.10 Category:People who died from smoking
- 7.4.11 Category:Villages of Cumbria
- 7.4.12 Category:São Paulo Athletic Club players
- 7.4.13 Category:Fires to Category:Historic fires
- 7.4.14 Category:Russian counter-revolution people to Category:Russian counter-revolutionaries
- 7.4.15 Category:Places of worship in Isreal
- 7.4.16 Category:Spanish ice hockey
- 7.4.17 Category:USYers
- 7.4.18 Category:Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005) players
- 7.4.19 Category:Victims of the Night of the Long Knives
- 7.4.20 Category:West Adelaide Soccer Club players
- 7.4.21 Category:Elections in the European Union and Category:European Parliament results
- 7.4.22 Category:Olympics by sports federation
- 7.4.23 Category:FIS at the Olympics
- 7.4.24 Category:Age of Mythology characters
- 7.4.25 Category:Bridgetown buildings
- 7.5 April 8
- 7.5.1 Category:Cancelled games to Category:Cancelled Olympic games
- 7.5.2 Category:Charter schools in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Charter schools
- 7.5.3 Category:African breweries
- 7.5.4 Category:Bangala language
- 7.5.5 Category:Ceratopsids
- 7.5.6 Category:Good articles
- 7.5.7 Category:Google services
- 7.5.8 Category:Gosiewski (Slepowron)
- 7.5.9 Category:Gothic sites of Italy
- 7.5.10 Category:Kalamazoo Wings players
- 7.5.11 Category:Kingdom Hearts planets
- 7.5.12 Category:Kurdish Jews
- 7.5.13 Category:Kurdistan geography
- 7.5.14 Category:Ranges of the Rocky Mountains
- 7.5.15 Category:Regional union federations
- 7.5.16 Category:Classical trombonist
- 7.5.17 Category:N'vyus albums
- 7.5.18 Category:McMaster University alumni
- 7.5.19 CHL alumni categories
- 7.5.20 Category:Hip hop music merge to Category:Hip hop
- 7.5.21 Uzbekistan categories
- 7.5.22 Category:Gay icons
- 7.5.23 Northern Wei imperials
- 7.5.24 Category:Milky Way's twins
- 7.5.25 Category:Nicknamed galaxies
- 7.5.26 Category:Ceratopsids
- 7.5.27 Category:FIBT at the Olympics
- 7.5.28 Category:IIHF at the Olympics
- 7.5.29 Category:ISU at the Olympics
- 7.5.30 Category:Journeyman Characters
- 7.5.31 Category:North Dakota Supreme Court
- 7.5.32 Category:Pachycephalosaurids
- 7.5.33 Category:Blocked vandal accounts
- 7.5.34 Category:Wikipedians who have run for public office to Category:Wikipedian politicians
- 7.5.35 Category:Colonization of other planets
- 7.5.36 Category:United States Air Force Fighter Squadrons
- 7.5.37 Category:Administrative divisions of Russia to Category:History of administrative divisions of Russia
- 7.5.38 Category:Buster Keaton films
- 7.5.39 Category:Desi press
- 7.5.40 Category:Lebanese
- 7.5.41 Category:New Power Sector
- 7.5.42 Category:Novels which deal with slavery
- 7.5.43 Category:Oberon Dialects
- 7.5.44 Category:Orders of magnitude (numbers)
- 7.5.45 Category:Polish rokosz's
- 7.5.46 Category:Separate Battalions of the United States Marine Corps
- 7.5.47 Category:Shooting Victims
- 7.5.48 Category:Swadesh list
- 7.5.49 Category:Transformer types
- 7.5.50 Category:Tulsa Hurricanes men's basketball coaches
- 7.5.51 Category:U.S. civil aircraft 1900-1909
- 7.5.52 Category:U.S. civil aircraft 1910-1919
- 7.5.53 Category:Ufology
- 7.5.54 Category:Malaysian opposition
- 7.5.55 Category:Left-handed people
- 7.5.56 Category:Metal Gear Solid characters to Category:Metal Gear characters
- 7.5.57 Category:Images of New York City, New York to Category:Images of New York City
- 7.5.58 Category:Sports in Dominica to Category:Sport in Dominica
- 7.5.59 Category:Porn stars by nationality: Czech porn stars
- 7.6 April 7
- 7.6.1 Category:American rock musicians by instrumet
- 7.6.2 Category:Fictional characters by secret identity
- 7.6.3 North-West Frontier Province nominations
- 7.6.4 Category:Female life peers to Category:Life peers
- 7.6.5 Category:Law Life Peers
- 7.6.6 Category:Christian CCM musical groups to Category:Contemporary Christian musical groups
- 7.6.7 Category:Touchstone films
- 7.6.8 Category:United States federal banking legislation → Category:United States federal financial legislation
- 7.6.9 Category:Warhammer 40,000 planets
- 7.6.10 Economics categories
- 7.6.11 Category:New England Association of Schools & Colleges to Category:New England Association of Schools and Colleges
- 7.6.12 Category:New England Association of Schools and Colleges
- 7.6.13 Category:Hurricanes in the United States by name
- 7.6.14 Category:Sliding at the Winter Olympics
- 7.6.15 Category:Sliders at the Winter Olympics
- 7.6.16 Category:Skating at the Winter Olympics
- 7.6.17 Category:NBC/Universal Television shows to Category:NBC network shows
- 7.6.18 Category:Anaheim Angels to Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
- 7.7 April 6
- 7.7.1 Category:United States Highways by state -> Category:U.S. Highways by state or Category:U.S. Routes by state
- 7.7.2 Category:Hyderabad
- 7.7.3 Category:Japanese visual arts to Category:Japanese art
- 7.7.4 Category:R&B vocalists
- 7.7.5 Category:Government and Politics of Belarus
- 7.7.6 Several Fooian companies to Companies of Foo
- 7.7.7 Category:Caribbean economic states to Category:Economies of the Caribbean
- 7.7.8 Category:List of Gaelic Poets
- 7.7.9 Category:Branchlist
- 7.7.10 Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Order to Category:Companions of the Distinguished Service Order
- 7.7.11 Category:Shania Twain songs
- 7.7.12 Category:NCFCA
- 7.7.13 Category:List of HFStival acts
- 7.7.14 Two "X member" categories
- 7.7.15 Category:Women of Ottoman Empire
- 7.7.16 Category:Melbourne institutions to Category:Melbourne organisations
- 7.7.17 Two Category:Political history of the United States subcategories
- 7.7.18 Category:List of schools in New Zealand
- 7.7.19 Category:Famous Redheads
- 7.7.20 Three surname categories
- 7.7.21 Category:Jonathan Edwards
- 7.7.22 Category:Military slang to Category:Military slang and jargon
- 7.7.23 CSI categories
- 7.7.24 Category:Investment managers to Category:Investment management companies
- 7.7.25 Category:American cable companies to Category:Cable television companies of the United States
- 7.8 April 5
- 7.8.1 Category:British sport by locality to Category:Sport in the United Kingdom by locality
- 7.8.2 Rugby league stadiums
- 7.8.3 Category:Iranian Stage actors to Category:Iranian stage actors
- 7.8.4 Category:Byzantine sites in Italy
- 7.8.5 Category:Romanesque sites of Puglia
- 7.8.6 Category:Gothic sites of Puglia
- 7.8.7 Category:Benz family
- 7.8.8 Category:Ruler-and-compass constructions
- 7.8.9 Category:Famous bow tie wearers
- 7.8.10 Category:United States wines to Category:American wines
- 7.8.11 Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios characters to Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios series and characters
- 7.8.12 Category:The Salvation Army in Films
- 7.8.13 Category:Lists of movements
- 7.8.14 Category:Software engineering disasters to Category:Disasters attributed to software engineering
- 7.9 April 4
- 7.9.1 Category:New York City geography to Category:Geography of New York City
- 7.9.2 Category:Compositions by musical composer
- 7.9.3 Category:University_of_Southern_Mississippi
- 7.9.4 Beer categories
- 7.9.5 Category:Preachers
- 7.9.6 Category:Piccadilly Radio DJ's to Category:Piccadilly Radio DJs
- 7.9.7 Category:Cult books
- 7.9.8 Category:Israel Defense Forces guided missiles
- 7.9.9 Category:Science fiction fans
- 7.9.10 Category:Wikipedians who feel good today
- 7.9.11 Category:Hoboken, New Jersey Mayors to Category:Mayors of Hoboken, New Jersey
- 7.9.12 Category:Space flight control room positions
- 7.9.13 Category:Subdivisions by country to Category:Political divisions by country
- 7.9.14 Subdivisions to Administrative divisions
- 7.9.15 Subdivisions to Political divisions
- 7.9.16 Category:User volleyball
- 7.9.17 Category:Pakistani hill stations
- 7.9.18 Category:Star Trek fans
- 7.9.19 Category:Historical empires of India to Category:Empires and kingdoms of India
- 7.9.20 Category:Kingdoms to Category:Monarchies
- 7.9.21 merge Category:Fictional plants with Category:Fictional plant species
- 7.9.22 Category:U.S. State legislatures to Category:State legislatures of the United States
- 7.9.23 Category:Units of the U.S. Army National Guard to Category:United States Army National Guard units
- 7.9.24 Category:Aubergine
- 7.9.25 Category:Soldiers of the United States
- 7.9.26 Category:Pennsylvania National Guard
- 7.9.27 Category:Separate Battalions of the United States Army to Category:Battalions of the United States Army
- 7.9.28 Category:Infantry divisions of the United States to Category:Infantry divisions of the United States Army
- 7.9.29 Category:Strike aircraft
- 7.9.30 Category:Armored divisions of the United States to Category:Armored divisions of the United States Army
- 7.9.31 Category:US Army Lineage and Honors
- 7.9.32 Category:Anti Iraq war people
- 7.9.33 Category:Issue in the Culture Wars
- 7.9.34 Category:Compositions by Instrumentation
- 7.10 Unresolved after seven days
- 7.1 April 12
- 8 Cleanup overhead
- 9 Discussions awaiting closure
- 10 Closing procedure
- 11 Bot
Discussions awaiting closure
- List of links to individual open discussions (>7 days old): Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions
- Full text of all open discussions (>7 days old): Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions
- List of days with open discussions (>7 days old): included below from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 19 (11 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 18 (18 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 17 (26 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 16 (23 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 15 (16 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 14 (8 open)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 12 (2 open)
Closing procedure
Bot
JJMC89 bot III (contribs · logs · docs) processes the requests on this page. It currently checks for new work at 17 and 47 minutes past the hour.
Process
|
---|
|
Bot work
If the category needs to be split among multiple destination categories, requires template editing, or requires editing the documentation subpage of templates, or any other special circumstances that require manual review, list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual rather than here.
If a category or group nomination has over 5,000 members to be updated by bot, list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large.
Speedy moves
- Category:Technical University of Braunschweig to Category:TU Braunschweig
- Category:Chief executives in the technology industry by country to Category:Chief executives in the technology industry by nationality
- Category:The Prince's Trust to Category:King's Trust
- Category:Filoil Flying V Preseason Premier Cup to Category:Filoil EcoOil Preseason Cup
- Category:2016 PSL season to Category:2016 Philippine Super Liga season
- Category:Rappers from Richmond to Category:Rappers from Richmond, Virginia
- REDIRECT Category:Bath (Berkeley Springs), West Virginia to Category:Berkeley Springs, West Virginia
Move
Bot information
|
---|
|
- Category:Festivals in North America by country and region to Category:Festivals in North America by first-level administrative country subdivision
- Category:Television stations in the Grand Rapids–Kalamazoo–Battle Creek market to Category:Television stations in West Michigan
Merge then delete
Bot information
|
---|
|
- Category:Volleyball players from Nagasaki to Category:Volleyball players from Nagasaki Prefecture
- Category:Volleyball players from Kurashiki to Category:Sportspeople from Kurashiki and Category:Volleyball players from Okayama Prefecture
- Category:Volleyball players from Okayama to Category:Sportspeople from Okayama and Category:Volleyball players from Okayama Prefecture
- Category:Children's books set in the 15th century BC (2 P) to Category:Works set in the 15th century BC and Category:Children's books set in antiquity
- Category:Children's books set in the 14th century BC (2 P) to Category:Works set in the 14th century BC and Category:Children's books set in antiquity
- Category:Children's books set in the 1st century BC (6 P) to Category:Works set in the 1st century BC and Category:Children's books set in antiquity
- Category:Children's books set in the 1st century (1 C, 4 P) to Category:Works set in the 1st century and Category:Children's books set in antiquity
- Category:Children's books set in the 2nd century (2 P) to Category:Works set in the 2nd century and Category:Children's books set in antiquity
- Category:Children's books set in the 3rd century (1 P) to Category:Works set in the 3rd century and Category:Children's books set in antiquity
- Category:Children's books set in the 5th century (1 P) to Category:Works set in the 5th century and Category:Children's books set in antiquity
- Category:Children's books set in the 6th century (2 P) to Category:Works set in the 6th century and Category:Children's books set in the Middle Ages
- Category:Children's books set in the 10th century (3 P) to Category:Works set in the 10th century and Category:Children's books set in the Middle Ages
- Category:Children's books set in the 11th century (2 P) to Category:Works set in the 11th century and Category:Children's books set in the Middle Ages
- Category:5th-century Patriarchs of Alexandria to Category:5th-century popes and patriarchs of Alexandria
Empty then delete
Bot information
|
---|
|
Retain
Bot information
|
---|
|
- None currently
Old by month categories with entries
This section lists old maintenance categories that should be empty but are not. This can result from reversions of pages, incomplete nominations, bot errors, backlogs or pending manual work.
- Category:Categories for discussion from April 2025 (15) – started with 534 to be processed