Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19

Category:Raine's School

Delete seems to be a hoax ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since all articles in cat are currently being snowballed. Luna Santin 01:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IPod

Merge into Category:IPods. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a redundant category. Luna Santin 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. David Kernow 01:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redundant RainbowCrane | Talk 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jim Carrey films

Delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_3#Category:Jim_Carrey_films. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as repost, per CSD G4. Luna Santin 01:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cancelled albums

Category:Cancelled albums into Category:Unreleased albums

Merge, "Cancelled" and "unreleased" seems to me to be substantially the same thing. kingboyk 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --musicpvm 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Very sensible.--Mike Selinker 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Unreleased albums, since it seems the more general of the two and isn't overpopulated at this time. Luna Santin 01:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:"100 Greatest Cartoons"

Delete, No context given about who named the 100 greatest cartoons so this category seems pretty POV. And of the 100 greatest cartoons, only one is listed in this category. Metros232 19:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if context was given, these "greatest" lists do not belong in categories. --musicpvm 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BoojiBoy 22:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 23:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context; if it is based off an actual list, I'd say maybe listify, but there's only one item, so... Luna Santin 01:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article to which I imagine this refers is 100 Greatest Cartoons, but Music is, I think, altogether correct that a category ought to be disfavored for such a list as this. Joe 04:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carina22 10:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by birth

Mostly fine set of categories, with a couple hiccups:

I left category:Happy Birthday! alone because it's harmless, elegantly named, and probably contains some very sophisticated architecture I don't want to disrupt. The Czech one seems odd, but there are no other parallel categories and the user in question is Slovak, not Czech. And before judging the "non-stereotypical" one, I encourage folks to check out how big it is.--Mike Selinker 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the second and third into Category:Hungarian Wikipedians and Category:Filipino Wikipedians respectively for consistency with all other subcats of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity. --musicpvm 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be OK with that, but let's see if anyone objects.--Mike Selinker 19:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Users born in Czechoslovakia category is meant for both Slovak and Czech Wikipedians, as most of them (all who are over 13) were actually born in Czechoslovakia, not in the respective successor countries. I was inspired by some T-shirts I've seen in both countries, so I thought is was kind of a cool idea for a wiki category. It's only been around for a week or so, so I'd give it some more time to fill with people. PeterRet 10:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dark ambient

Delete, The category is a cross-namespace redirect to Dark ambient. There is only one article in this category and that article doesn't seem to be a notable band (and has been tagged for speedy deletion). Metros232 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; also a vague name. David Kernow 01:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fort Worthians

Category:Fort Worthians to Category:People from Fort Worth, Texas

Rename, per convention. Golfcam 18:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, I don't think it's necessary to disambiguate with "Texas" in this case though. Category:People from Fort Worth would be enough. --musicpvm 19:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per musicpvm. - EurekaLott 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Keeps it in line with other categories. Maltmomma ^(chat) 12:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by politics

Two main formats here: “X Wikipedians” for parties and basic ideologies, and “Wikipedians who support/oppose X” for things and concepts. This is potentially contentious, so please assume good faith.--Mike Selinker 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, with a couple thoughts:
- category:Wikipedian USA-Germany to category:Wikipedians who support German-American relations.
- category:Supporters of the Troops should be up for deletion. It doesn't specify which country's troops (USA is presumed), and doesn't specify how those troops are being supported (actions in Iraq, for example?)
- Several others of those listed above may also be cantidates for deletion - Jc37 18:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed the German-American one. I think the "troops" one is a uniquely American ideology--support those serving in the military without making a claim on whether you support their commander in chief. I'm not inclined to delete any of these in this nomination, though, because then we encourage a "well, if I can't have mine then you can't have yours" fight.--Mike Selinker 18:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Understandable. In the meantime, then, I suggest: category:Wikipedians who support the US troops. - Jc37 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fixed. Thanks.--Mike Selinker 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General support of renaming. Incidentally, while we're at it, what is the distinction between category:Queer Supportive Wikipedians (to be renamed category:Queer-Supportive Wikipedians) and category:LGBT SOFFA (to be renamed category:Wikipedians who support the LGBT community)? Could these be merged into a single category while this renaming is going on, or would that be an additional unnecessary complication? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any difference, but this is an area where I figure it'd be good to tread carefully. (It certainly seems that the Queer Supportive name was carefully thought through, as evidenced by the "thanks" on the page.) I'd be interested to know if anyone in the category feels one way or another.--Mike Selinker 19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it's worth, I used to be in the "Queer Supportive Wikipedians" category myself before I removed all my political and religious userboxes and replaced them with a bit of text on my user page, per Jimbo's request from a while back; and I think that having two categories is redundant. (I don't much care which name predominates, though.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I posted a comment on those talk pages, Category talk:Queer Supportive Wikipedians and Category talk:LGBT SOFFA.--Mike Selinker 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General support for renaming, but Strongly Oppose the very POV-sounding "Democrat Wikipedians". Use of "Democrat" as an adjective is advocated by some people who oppose the party, and has come to be seen as an indicator of bias. If "Democratic (US) Wikipedians" is thought to be unclear, then the existing name should be retained. Kestenbaum 19:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's unclear as Democratic. Fixed.--Mike Selinker 19:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support including the word "Wikipedian" in all cases. Chicheley 23:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sexy Wikipedians

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_16#Category:Sex_Symbols. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this cat contains and was created by the user who created Category:Sex Symbols. --musicpvm 19:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carina22 10:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accounting

Delete - This +cat existed before and was replaced by Category:Accountancy. It should be deleted quickly before anymore +tags get attached and a major clean up needed. What123 16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Keep Category:Accountancy is not a good description of the field, since it refers to a job title. Category:Accounting is needed to describe a lot of issues in economics. It seems to me that two separate categories are justified, but if there is only to be one it should be called Category:Accounting. Also, I think it was unreasonably pre-emptive to delete tags without discussion JQ 12:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom

speedy delete - category has been empty for several days and is both redundant and superfluous given that correct categories for grounds in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland already exist. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep It was empty because BlackJack emptied it but I have restored it. All sports venues in the United Kingdom should be included in Category:Sports venues in the United Kingdom and via that in Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom. Hawkestone 17:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawkestone. - EurekaLott 20:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawkestone. Chicheley 23:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this section was removed by its nominator, who also emptied the category again listed the category for speedy deletion. I'm restoring the previous versions now. - EurekaLott 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is false and misleading to categorise anything to do with cricket or football in UK terms. It is fact that all cricket and football in the UK is based on the individual nations, not as British or UK teams or organisations. There are already adequate categories for cricket venues in the home nations. By all means include these under Category:Sports venues in the United Kingdom but to talk about "UK cricket venues" is incorrect and does not help the readers at all. Furthermore, the category was empty for over a week before this proposal was created so why is it now being populated by people on this page to make it appear to future readers that it was not empty? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eleanor Powell films

Delete as recreation of Category:Films by actor. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator of the category. Please refer me to the Wikipedia Policy page that prohibits such categories. I'm unaware of the "Films by actor" category ever existing. 23skidoo 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a good idea. See previous discussions here and here. --musicpvm 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Music. Joe 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Samuel L. Jackson Films

Delete since Category:Films by actor killed April 11, 2006. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons given above. I know of no Wikipolicy prohibiting such categories, it's maintainable, and I never heard of the "Films by actor" category (and would have voted to keep if I did). 23skidoo 18:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a good idea. See previous discussions here and here. --musicpvm 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Music. Joe 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Planetshakers Albums

Category:Planetshakers Albums to Category:Planetshakers albums
Category:PlanetShaker Albums to Category:Planetshakers albums
Rename, Per normal conventions. kingboyk 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename as per nom. - Jc37 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename.--Mike Selinker 19:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nature's Best

Delete, Doesn't make sense to me to categorise this not-particularly-noteworthy compilation series seperately from other compilations. kingboyk 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category allows these New Zealand articles to be grouped together, which is useful from a NZ perspective even if the albums aren't globally notable. Chicheley 23:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Solid Steel

Category:Solid Steel into Category:Ninja Tune albums

Merge, I see no reason why this compilation series needs to be categorised seperately from other Ninja Tune albums nor go against the naming norm (xxx albums). kingboyk 15:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Islamist terrorists

Delete. Improper categorization per WP:NCCAT#Occupation. We already have Category:British terrorists and Category:Islamists. There is potential for creating Category:British Islamists, but we don't categorize occupations by religion and nationality in the same cat for good reason: non-British Islamists and non-Islamist terrorists exist. —Viriditas | Talk 14:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. After reading WP:NCCAT and it's numerous subpages, I am not understanding your example. Priests; Roman Catholic priests; Italian priests; Italian Roman Catholic priests. If we follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) which do you feel would be the most appropriate? - Jc37 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your example is actually quite different than the nominated cat. RC priests are a subset, categorized by nationality in some cases. Perfectly valid. However, you will notice that Islamists are a subset of Muslims, not criminals, which contains terrorists: two separate sets. In such cases, we categorize by a generic description of the event, or by the name of the group. That is, in fact what was done to contain members of the RC sex scandal; they have their own cat which is a subset of both religion and crime. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It sounds like your concern is the order of the modifiers, since the name appears to be a merger of two concepts: British terrorists and Islamic extremist terrorists (both of which apply to those within this category, I presume). I might support a 'Rename adding "extremist" to the name. And is there a difference between saying Muslim extremist and Islamic extremist? Apparently there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist. (The latter being extremists.) (See also Muslim#Disagreements and Islamic extremist terrorism.) - Jc37 03:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Entities of type Y are subtypes of entity type X if and only if every Y is necessarily an X. Terrorists are types of criminals; Islamists are types of Muslims. Muslims are not types of criminals. For example, in the case of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, members of the Roman Catholic church were named and implicated. Categories describing the nationality, church position, and crime of each person were not created due to the reasons above. Instead, a general category was created for the scandal itself (Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal), and that cat was populated with members who maintained their original categories, such as by conviction (sex offender), by position (American Roman Catholic priests), and other crime cats (American rapists). The categorization of terrorists is no different than that of sex offenders. We do not mix religion and crime; instead we create a new category that either represents the incident or group, and categorize appropriately. This leaves the current categorization scheme intact while adding a new relationship. End result: Category:British Islamists and Category:British terrorists will be populated with the members of Category:British Islamist terrorists, and a new category will be added describing the relationship between the two. One solution might be to add relevant terrorist incident cats (for example Category:July 2005 London bombings) to relevant members, as the need arises. Notice, then, that all descriptive information has been accurately represented and preserved. —Viriditas | Talk 06:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly defined and prominent subgroup of British terrorists. Hawkestone 17:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, in fact Islamists are not a subset of terrorists in the categorization scheme. —Viriditas | Talk 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The terrorists have an agenda and are defined as such.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, that's not how we use categories. —Viriditas | Talk 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese actress

Merge into Category:Japanese actors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge per nom; following the pattern of other such categories, eliminating the actress cats. Thanks Hmains 16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "actors" categories might be renamed "actors and actresses" categories in case they are assumed to contain only men...? Regards, David Kernow 02:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tommy February6 releases

Category:ForeFront Records releases to Category:ForeFront Records albums
Category:Gotee Records releases to Category:Gotee Records albums
Category:Project X releases to Category:Project X albums
Category:Tommy February6 releases to Category:Tommy February6 albums
Rename, Per convention kingboyk 14:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.--Mike Selinker 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. --musicpvm 16:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors who portrayed The Mad Hatter (Batman)

Delete, unnecessarily specific category with only two articles in it. User:Angr 13:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, I don't think we should delete this by itself, since there are three dozen similar categories in the Batman actors parent categories. I'm not a big fan of any of them, though.--Mike Selinker 13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excessive categorisation (all the others should be deleted too). Hawkestone 17:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes all of the similar sub-categories would appear to be better served as list pages. The list page(s) should be created prior to deletion(s). - Jc37 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freiburg School and Category:Freiburg School economists

Delete Obscure claimed school. Main category has one eponymous article and subcategory has three stubby entries JQ 11:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stubbiness does not imply obscurity. The term "Freiburg School" is a much used term in academia. See Google Scholar for example. Intangible 15:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Google Scholar produces 400 or so hits, some to a school of thought in embryology. This is enough to justify an entry, but not enough for its own category. For comparison, "Chicago School" gets over 17000 entries and lots of individual economists have more entries than this. JQ 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Well. Only recently a renewed (international) interest was generated into the Freiburg School. I don't think you can hold that against them. Its signifance in Germany's history is also not to be neglected. Without these people, West Germany would never have prospered right after the Second World War. Furthermore, there are also hits in Google Scholar to each individual member, without explicit reference to the Freiburg School. (854 vs. 974 for Walter Eucken). Intangible 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I agree that this group is of interest, although I hadn't heard of them before and I'm reasonably well-read in economics (social market economy and ordoliberalism certainly, but normally imputed to others). Still, there are a *lot* of 'schools' in this sense, and we need to work out a sensible way of dealing with them in the categorization scheme or it will be overwhelmed. I propose to create a category for locality-based schools of thought, including say Chicago, Virginia public choice and so on, and include Freiburg in this group.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 13:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have just looked at the category and some of the articles. I think that caregories are important to organize material together. Thus, a catgory for each economic school of thought is not too much, with a super category above such schools. The WP database can certainly handle more categories.

And economics is important to all our lives. Thanks Hmains 16:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian Football League punt returners

Merge into Category:Canadian Football League kick returners. --Amchow78 ^(talk) Amchow78 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merge as listed doesn't make sense (punts are not kicks), but I could see merging both into Category:Canadian Football League returners. This only works if the parallel categories, category:American football kick returners and category:American football punt returners, are merged into category:American football returners. None of that rolls off the tongue very well, though, so I'd say weak keep.--Mike Selinker 13:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Municipalities in Spain and all of its subcategories to Category:Municipalities of Spain

Moved from speedy after dicussion. Vegaswikian 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per naming conventions. Tim! 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Municipalities in Sevilla must be renamed to Category:Municipalities of Seville eeeee. --Emijrp 08:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all using "in" to "of" per nom. David Kernow 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#State-based topics. - EurekaLott 02:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps time to reconsider the relevant convention/s...? Virtually all articles on national administrative divisions I've passed by use "X of Y". This seems sensible as what's translated to be an X for one country is not necessarily translated as X for another, as is the case with "municipality". Regards, David Kernow 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further observation: Articles on national administrative subdivisions seem to follow (ought to follow?) a "Xs of Y" format. Regards, David Kernow 13:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Category:Municipalities. Vegaswikian 17:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all using "of", which is the convention for subdivisions. Hawkestone 17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - "Part of" Spain, not "enclosed in" Spain. - Jc37 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Giving this more thought. One would say Chicago is "in" Illinois, not "of" Illinois. Quote: Administrative divisions take the "of" form and settlements take the "in" form. Municipalities are usually found in non-English speaking countries as third tier administrative divisions covering the whole country including rural areas. In most cases, there are separate designations for settlements such as cities and towns. However where the designation "municipality" is used solely for urban settlements (example, Romania) or where it is the only official designation for cities and towns (example, Spain), the category takes the "in" form. - from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#State-based topics - Jc37 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the difficulty is where some types of settlement are also used as administrative subdivisions... Regards, David Kernow 02:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why can't we use "in" for all geographical feature categories, whether physical or human? Chicheley 23:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's an overlap between geography and administrative subdivision (and political subdivision and...) which suggests the former might be "in" a country or territory but the latter are "of" a country or territory, i.e. "belong" to it. Overtones of natural feature => "in", man-made feature => "of"...? Regards, David Kernow 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the opposite of the actual conventions that apply to most cases. Carina22 10:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per note quoted by Jc37 Carina22 10:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Category:Giant Panda (Hip Hop)~~
~~Category:Giant Panda (Hip Hop) to Category:Giant Panda albums~~
Rename, Per norm. kingboyk 12:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 13:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Rayons of Azerbaijan~~
Category:Rayons of Azerbaijan to Category:Districts of Azerbaijan
Rationale: To use standard English term. David Kernow 10:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and redirect as nom. David Kernow 10:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Carina22 10:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Lobbying groups~~
~~Category:Lobbying groups into Category:Advocacy groups~~
Merge, although there probably is a (subjective) slight difference between "lobbying" and "political advocacy" (with lobbying being more respectable, posher,... and better paid), in practice these two cats are a hotch-potch of the two. I also note that subcats by country have different names. Mais oui! 08:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the members of each category, I'm wondering whether there is a distinction to be made between "political" and "non-political" lobbying or advocacy... if, say, the categories were merged into one named Category:Lobbying and advocacy groups, would this combine groups that advocate but not necessarily lobby ("advocate politically")...? Unsure, David Kernow 10:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A lobbyist is an activist that actually lobbies an individual or group for change. An activist can merely be someone with an opinion and a bullhorn. So lobbying groups is a sub-category of advocacy groups. Both categories need cleanup. - Jc37 17:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Celebrities with MySpace accounts~~
~~Category:Celebrities with MySpace accounts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Delete, I don't think it's a good idea to categorise people by what websites they use. Philip Stevens 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Déjà vu...? David Kernow 10:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean déjà vu? Has it been up for deletion before? Philip Stevens 12:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under a different name, I think. --kingboyk 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something like that. David 13:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice. --kingboyk 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that {{MySpace}} has also been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 19. --kingboyk 13:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hawkestone 17:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Commonwealth Sport~~
~~Category:Commonwealth Sport to Category:Category:Commonwealth of Nations sports competitions~~
Rename, remove the capital "S"; and disambiguate "Commonwealth" (see Commonwealth disambiguation page). Also, all the members of the category are competitions, so better to make that explicit. (An alternative title may be Category:Commonwealth of Nations sports events?) Mais oui! 08:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Black pudding throwing is very clearly a sporting activity, but is bridge? --Mais oui! 08:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Sports events of the Commonwealth of Nations to avoid triple consecutive plural. David Kernow 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that it implies that these things are actually organised by the CofN - ie. "official" - I very much doubt if that is true, at least for some of them? --Mais oui! 12:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sports events associated with the Commonwealth of Nations...? Regards, David 13:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what the proposer of this name change is seeking, however I would argue that Commonwealth Sport is succinct enough as a category. Mais oui! argues that all the members of the category are competitions - this is not so, since one of the pages is Commonwealth Games Associations which are the governing bodies of Commonwealth Sporting activity in their relevant countries. Most of the competitions are sanctioned by the Commonwealth Games Federation - including the bridge competition - though not all are. To ease with disambiguation perhaps an entry at the front of the article stating that Commonwealth refers to countries and territories which are part of the Commonwealth of Nations - as opposed to the Commonwealth of Virginia etc. That in itself would be a simple solution, though not totally encyclopeadic. For instance Hong Kong has taken part at the Commonwealth Lifesaving Championships, post return of the territory to China. The intention of the category was to show that sporting competitions take place between Commonwealth countries outwith and beyond the Commonwealth Games. Incidentally this is another arguement for why the Commonwealth of Nations is still relevant in the 21st century, because Commonwealth nations have a desire to compete against each other in sporting competitions ..... but that is a discussion for another page. In short I would argue that the category remains simply and succinctly Commonwealth Sport. Rhyddfrydol 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if kept, {{capitalmove}} to Category:Commonwealth sport. David Kernow 02:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I agree with David Kernow Rhyddfrydol 13:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Category:Entertainers from Creole Decent~~
~~Category:Entertainers from Creole Decent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Delete, Category title has poor grammar and spelling. Also, the Creole peoples article states "The term Creole and its cognates in other languages have been applied to people in different countries and epochs, with rather different meanings." musicpvm 06:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, rename to Category:Entertainers of Carribean descent...? David Kernow 10:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too vague. -- JHunterJ 12:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Creole" is a word that should be avoided in category names. Chicheley 23:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Rock'n'Roll~~
~~Category:Rock'n'Roll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Delete. Redundant to Category:Rock music and it contains only 3 articles. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --musicpvm 06:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above plus miscapitaliz/sation. David Kernow 10:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Bassists~~
Members should be divided between Category:Double-bassists, Category:Bass guitarists, and Category:Musicians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Fictional South Park foods~~
~~Category:Fictional South Park foods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~
Delete -- There are only two things in this category. It should be deleted and the two things categorized under this should probably just be changed to Category:Fictional foods. -Platypus Man | Talk 01:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extreme fancruft. KleenupKrew 02:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Fictional foods per nom. --musicpvm 05:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. --Mike Selinker 05:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Georgia maps~~
~~Category:Georgia maps into Category:Maps of Georgia (country)~~
Merge, Duplicate cats, "Maps of foo" appears to be the standard form of Category:Maps by country's children. AJR | Talk 00:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Cloachland 02:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete/redirect. David Kernow 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --musicpvm 05:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, countryname maps was the naming convention in Category:Maps by country, but User:Electionworld has been creating dozens of duplicate categories. We probably need to look at the entire category. - EurekaLott 14:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest convention is switched to "Maps of X" per Commons as (a) permits "Adjectival maps of X" (e.g. "Old maps of Atlantis") and (b) avoids difficulties with place-names' adjectivals that are awkward and/or obscure (cf List of adjectival forms of place names). Regards, David Kernow 15:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be appropriate to rename the categories to maps of country, but if you actually looked at the category, you'd see that the older categories have names like Category:Russia maps and Category:Hungary maps, and do not employ the adjectival form. - EurekaLott 20:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if it wasn't evident I'd taken a look. A subtext of my suggestion is that if an adjectival syntax is to be used, let's use adjectivals; but as this can be awkward ((b) above), let's consider "Maps of..." Regards, David 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]