Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 1 August 3 >

August 2[edit]

Category:Environment of Clackmannan[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Golden age of hip hop[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golden age of hip hop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Very subjective category, derived from a main article that is unfinished (has totally blank header) and was nominated for deletion in May though survived, There's still no need for a relating category. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 21:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Landolitan 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as POV. --musicpvm 21:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- So the Wiki-Police are back on the beat? Hmmm, considering there are ridiculous categories such as "People who ran marathons with one leg", "People with foot-long nose hairs", I'm being sarcastic but you get the point. There are so many ridiculous categories on this "any one can edit/delete/ what they don't agree with" website it's borderline sickening. If you're searching for categories to delete you have alot of work ahead of you fella's. Start from "A". And while you're at it make a few categories call "People who own stock in Wikipedia", "People who think people who aren't them shouldn't make articles" and "People who edit articles to give themselves a warm fuzzy".Gorgeousp 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you find ridiculous categories please nominate them for deletion, but that is a spurious defence of this one. Everyone knows Wikipedia is full of things that need to be tidied up, so let's get on with it. ReeseM 22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - If the article does not deserve to be deleted (or merged with something like Old school hip hop), and if the definition of raps golden age can be cited and strengthened, this category makes sense. The problem is that rap's historians havn't settled on usages for chronologically based categories for music, and it is not WPs place to establish these usages (if the category isn't founded on chronology, then can you explain an encyclopedic relationship between 3rd Bass, De La Soul, NWA, and Public Enemy that doesn't involve time?). Smmurphy(Talk) 22:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ReeseM 22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: In a subjective area like this one, it's better to use an article format, with context and explanations, than a category format. Λυδαcιτγ 23:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No such thing. :P BoojiBoy 23:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have a set of articles on it, can't have a category of it. --tjstrf 04:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Old-school hip hop. That's the industry term, and the one recognized by most people. --M@rēino 22:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Are you guys kidding? Ever major genre of music has had its "golden age", whether it be Jazz (the '50s), Psychadelic Rock (the '60s), Funk (the '70s), etc. Hence, the category is justified. Although there may be valid argumentation as to whether '86 and/or '94 should be included, the core of the years that were indeed "golden" is not in question. In other words, leave it alone, and allow those who would "dispute the intricacies" to do so to their own delight. Furthermore, having been present during those years, I saw the impact of these years first-hand, specifically, the influence these years would have upon the modern, post-millenial state of Hip Hop, R & B, and Pop. Perhaps it is the lack of a COMPLETE list of the artists who would qualify as "golden-agers" that is the true problem here. Were this category to be allowed to grow (as it undoubtedly would), this list would eventually contain a veritable "who's who" of the absolutely biggest names in the music industry today, many of whom are either multi-platinum artists or industry insiders/executives. It was during the period in quetion that these artists were introduced to the world commercially, as album deals and videos were finally becoming available to an otherwise underground sub-culture. It is understandable that there are many who do not quite yet understand the historical value of Hip Hop and its Golden Age, but let us not allow the short-sightedness of a select few to restrict the rest of the world. Please re-consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean T (talk • contribs)
  • Response - If WP does not have a GA category for the aforementioned genres, that is merely an unrealized event. It is not to say that these genres (a) do not have a recognizable "Golden Age", and (b) should not have a "Golden Age" category (on WP). I am not suggsting that Hip Hop be an "exception", I merely state that a GA category would be warranted. Furthermore, just because these other genres lack a GA category, should Hip Hop not be allowed one? I hope you see my point. These years have an historical relevance that is just now becoming realized (significant). It is indeed an Era, similar to the "Flower Power" movement, the "Beat Era", the "Baby Boomers", etc. It not only spawned musical identities, but also Hip Hop as a cultural movement via various movies, radio station format changes, recognized art (graffiti), dance (breakdancin, electric boogaloo, etc), style of dress (urban gear), etc....

P.S. - "Old School Hip Hop" would fail as a proper designation, as it is popularly encapsulated in the years prior to the Golden Era. Therefore it would not be applicable. P.S.S - Sorry for not signing, Sean T 02:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's not that serious fella's, there's a war going on outside---JackOfBlades 16:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Ambiguity[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambiguity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, the purpose of this category is...what's the word, unclear? uncertain? All joking aside, this recently-created category does not seem to serve any purpose except to link a couple of terms featuring the word "ambiguity." No clear criteria for inclusion, and no clear benefit from its existence. -- H·G (words/works) 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 14:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Defunct Orkney organisations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct Orkney organisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Hong Kong television newsreaders and journalists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Hong Kong television journalists as per below and [2] --Kbdank71 20:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Hong Kong newscasters. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Passer-by 19:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - two words same meaning. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. David Kernow 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. GCarty 07:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think of "newscaster" as a mainly American term, though the article news presenter stage the term used can vary from organisation to organisation in English speaking countries. Merge both into Category:Hong Kong news presenters in line with the term chosen for the article. Honbicot 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the convention in use is "television journalists". I will do a separate nomination of the newcasters category. The New Zealand category is also non-standard, but in a different way. Honbicot 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no one uses the term "newscaster" outside America - WP is not American, it's international. Can we please reflect that? (JROBBO 12:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Prehistoric mammals[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Stoner films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Drug-related films. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:British female MPs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (and if I may suggest a fresh renomination?) --Kbdank71 20:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK folks - We had a bit of a mix up here so bear with us. The original nomination earlier in the day was to have the "female" part take out of the subcategories remove the subcats (upmerge) and leave the overcategory of British female MPs alone. However, another nomination was made later to remove British female MPs entirely. Both nominations are preserved here with votes intact as they were at the time of refactoring. I'm going to contact everyone who has commented until now and try and have them revisit to make sure that their view reflects on the possibilities from this new nomination. If you are clarifying your vote, can you make some note of that and place them immediately following this message? Thanks! Syrthiss 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid this becoming even more confusing, please add new comments and discussion in the section immediately below. I have moved three comments there, based on the timestamp history. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEW discussion[edit]
  • Delete per Landolitan. Maggie Thatcher, for example, was in no obvious need of a wee crutch to assist her to public notice. This vote is a clarification of my previous two votes: get rid of the whole lot. (I only created the Eng, NI, Scot and Welsh subcats because I assumed that the female MPs format had consensus support. Now I see that this method of discrimination is not egalitarian, I have changed my opinion. "When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?" - JM Keynes.) --Mais oui! 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close CFD - I think it is useful to subdivide by party affiliation, gender, geography of seat and parliamentary session - to do these simultaneously will take effort, but with multi-categorisation can be done. The system needs a complete overhaul, and doing it piece-by-piece through CFD is a nightmare, before we've even agreed on the system we're aiming for. Can we close these CFD's for now, and carry on discussion at Category_talk:British MPs? All the necessary CFM/D-ing can be done en masse at the end. Aquilina 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these anachronistic sexist categories. ReeseM 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all female national subcats up to the relevant national Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from XXX constituencies. Delete Category:British female MPs. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge all female specific categories. There must have been hundreds of female MPs. These categories would have been notable in 1950, but they aren't now. Osomec 12:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment By my calculations there have been 297 female MPs ever, of which 128 were elected in 2005. Given that there are over 650 MPs now, there are more male MPs currently sitting in Parliament than there have ever been female MPs. As to the point about the 1950s, at the very least there should be classification of the first female MPs when there were just a few dozen at any one time; and anyway, in 1966 just 26 women were elected our of just 80 candidates, so the extreme discrepancy continued right up until very, very recently (and it's still less than 25%). Martín (saying/doing) 12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename main category, merge subcats by nation. I would be happy to close CFD and consider this as part of the wider category discussion, as User:Aquilina. But I think in this case gender is a valid and useful method of classification but needs to be separated from other forms of categorisation (see my comments in older discussions). The category should be renamed Category:Female members of the UK House of Commons as suggested at Category talk:British MPs Martín (saying/doing) 12:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close CFD. This process has become a complete mess, with comments moved, revised, etc, so that it is no longer clear what is being proposed or opposed. Those who commented before last night's restructuring were asked review their comments, and some appear to have done so. Now Cactus.man has created yet another new discussion, and with all this changing, I cannot see any way that the discussion can reach a clear outcome: e.g. my original proposal is no longer at the top of this discussion.
  • alternatively, if discussion not closed, Vote to keep main category, upmerge subcats.
    The Category:British female MPs is of important encyclopedic usage. See comments below, from one of the earlier discussions, especially the extract below from from Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. There is clear precedent for the maintenance of this category: see Category:Female life peers, and its most certainly NOT sexist to categorise the ongoing historical and ongoing under-representation of minority women in politics. (in response to Osomec, I etimate that there have been about 200-250 in total. As recently as the 1987 election, there were only 41, and the 1997 general election was the first time that women topped 10% of MPs: The Fawcett Society's briefing counts 23 in 1983 (3.5%), 41 in 1987 (6.3%), 60 in 1992 (9.2%), 120 in 1997 (18.2%), 118 in 2001 (17.9%), 128 in 2005 (19.8%).)
    As the gender, race and sexuality guidelines note "historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default", and that's why categories such as this category and Category:Women in the United States Congress have value.
    Similar interest drives classification of other under-represented groups, such as Category:British Asian politicians --BrownHairedGirl 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ORIGINAL earlier discussion[edit]
  • Merge, unnecessary subdivision, creating category clutter. MPs are subdivided by nation (England, Wales etc); this sub-sub-category is an excessive subdivision. Retain these MPs in Category:British female MPs. --BrownHairedGirl 15:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as nom, to reduce clutter and because if this category is to be useful, it needs to list all female MPs together. Oh and the new name is also better. Martín (saying/doing) 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Conditional Merge - merge, or populate both levels, to facilitate easy subdivision of the supercategory for other equally useful purposes. Aquilina 17:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC) -recommenting below after mix-up[reply]

  • Merge. The parliament of which these women are members is the UK parliament, it is not itself subdivided by nation. --ajn (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if parent category kept - the English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh cats are all just as important to their respective hierarchies as the UK one is to its - but I would rather that the whole lot were deleted. - see below --Mais oui! 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ORIGINAL later discussion[edit]
  • Delete, unnecessary subdivision, creating category clutter. These articles are all dual-categorised anyway in the parent category, so no Merge is necessary. Discriminatory: there is no Category:British male MPs and nor should there be. - see below Mais oui! 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Female members of the UK House of Commons. It is useful to have a list of female MPs who have sat in the UK Parliament, given that there have been fewer female MPs ever than there are total current MPs. It is not discriminatory as these MPs should be dual categorised in the parent category, as WP:SUBCAT. I hope that this is not a revenge nomination for the CFD nomination below - gender, geography, party and term are all valid ways of categorising MPs, as we have tried to discuss at Category talk:British MPs, but we shouldn't mix them up - we don't want Category:Female Labour MPs for Reading or whatever, just separate hierarchies for these different systems. Martín (saying/doing) 16:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It is useful to have a list of female MPs who have sat in the UK Parliament" - categories are not lists! If you would find it useful to have a "list" then please create an article called List of female MPs who have sat in the UK Parliament, or similar title. Please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. --Mais oui! 16:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right to point out my sloppy use of the word 'list', and yes a list would be useful still, by date elected. But if categories are used to order subjects by notable facts, then I still think that, lamentably, being female is a notable and pertinent fact about a Member of Parliament. So it should stay. Also, if categories are helpful ways to navigate between subjects using a notable feature of those subjects, then I think this category is again worth keeping. It seems a pity not to have addressed this first at Category talk:British MPs, where I had briefly mentioned this subject. Martín (saying/doing) 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. MPs have historically been male, and until the last decade of the twentieth century, female MPs 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 18:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warning: Mais oui, I find it hard to accept that this nomination is in good faith, for the following reasons:
  • It was made immediately after the nomination to upmerge the subcats of this category.
  • It was initially posted in replacement of the nomination above, and only reposted here ater I had removed it. Removing a CFM discussion looks like vandalism, and I unable to se how it could have been done accidentally. (note later: correction: sorry, your CFD overwrote the link, not the CFM itself)
  • The sub-categories of Category:British female MPs were all created by you. Why are you proposing the deletion of a category which you subdivided and helped to populate?
If this is not a disruptive CFD, please explain why you suddenly decided now to make this nnomination. --BrownHairedGirl 17:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "overwrote" is probably the wrong term: obscured or "hijacked might have been better". You created new a CFD with the same name as the CFM just created, so that the links pointed your new CFD rather than to the original one. Still no answer to the questoon, why did you make this nomination now, when you were involved in discussions shortly after this category was created? It's a legitimate CFD, but the timing is puzzling. --BrownHairedGirl 22:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong: Wikipedia software automatically creates a CFD header with exactly the same name as the cat you nominate for deletion. I nominated Category:British female MPs for deletion, therefore Wikipedia automatically created a new header called British female MPs. Thank goodness you are not a politician: you would not last 5 minutes. --Mais oui! 22:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Female MPs are no longer notable for their gender. Landolitan 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Ethiopian arts[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethiopian arts to Category:Arts in Ethiopia

Category is proposed for renaming to Category:Arts in Ethiopia to match all other "in country" named categories in Category:Arts by country, such as Category:Arts in France and Category:Arts in Canada. Kurieeto 15:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Harry Potter music[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harry Potter music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Ajaria to Category:Adjara[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been lurking in Category:Categories for speedy renaming since May 9, 2006. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis that the articles is at Adjara, but this is a disputed territory, so the name may be a controversial matter. ReeseM 22:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was my reasoning also. The article says this teritory is also known as Ajaria, Ajara, Adjaria, Adzharia, Adzhara, and Achara. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Australian rules football player rosters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian rules football player rosters to Category:Australian rules football player lists

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Knights of the Bath[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Knights of the Bath to Category:Knights of the Order of the Bath

  • Merge. Was previously speedied but not tagged. Both categories exist, and "Knights of the Order of the Bath" seems more correct to me, reflecting the category's main article. RobertG ♬ talk 09:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Non-Fictional Egyptian books[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Non-fictional Egyptian literature for consistency with other subcats (see Category talk:Non-fiction) --Kbdank71 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-Fictional Egyptian books to Category:Non-fictional Egyptian literature

  • Rename, was speedied to remove capital F, but would be better renamed altogether for consistency. RobertG ♬ talk 09:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from speedy.

Comment the al suffix on fiction is just incorrect if you are talking about non-fiction. If you are talking about actual literature, then non-fictional is redundant. Bejnar 13:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Anti-Muslim sentiment[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Merge There is already a category titled Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. The categories are the same. C56C 06:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Merge, Anti-Muslim refers to sentiment toward actual believers (individuals) of Islam while Anti-Islam sentiment doesn't refer to individuals. (→Netscott) 07:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The categories and articles don't make that distinction. C56C 21:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hostility towards individuals is not a proper basis for a category. In any case, this distinction is not likely to be generally understood and consistently applied, so merge if not deleted. Sumahoy 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Makes unnecessary hair-splitting distinction, hence redundant. And shouldn't it be "Anti-Islamic sentiment" for proper grammar? --tjstrf 04:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but move articles relating to individuals to Category:Anti-Islam activists. GCarty 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (first choice) or merge (second choice) per nom and tjstrf. Osomec 12:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I refuse to vote delete unless the other category is actually nominated. --M@rēino 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There is precedent, a host of others that exist under category:Prejudices and seems to me they are directed at a people/communities beleive so should be called Anti-Muslim sentiment.--Tigeroo 11:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:User Composition[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Composition to Category:Wikipedian composers

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Chinese neolithic cultures[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Neolithic cultures in China --Kbdank71 13:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese neolithic cultures to Category:Neolithic cultures of China

  • Rename, Neolithic should be capitalized, "Neolithic cultures of China" is a better description than "Chinese Neolithic cultures". Confuzion 03:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative rename to Neolithic cultures in China Cultures should use the naming convention of ethnic groups, which is "in X". Categorizing cultures as being "of state" or "of region" is inadvisable and less accurate. Kurieeto 15:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I also think that "in China" is better. I only chose "of" because it seemed to be the more common choice for cats, and also because another similar cat, Category:Pre-Hispanic cultures of Mexico, uses the same scheme.--Confuzion 04:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Wikipedian statistical reasons[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian statistical reasons to Category:Wikipedians who use userboxes for statistical reasons

  • Rename - This name better reflects what the category is for. Cswrye 03:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Osomec 12:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Users whose favorite color is red[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users whose favorite color is red (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - Why just red? Shouldn't those of us who like blue, green, or pink get categories as well? Seriously, I don't think that this category contributes anything. Note that if it is not deleted, it should be renamed Category:Wikipedians whose favorite color is red. Cswrye 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete C56C 06:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or at least rename as per Cswyre. Olborne 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless. —Mira 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Huh? Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better deleted than red. BoojiBoy 23:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Cswrye. Don't delete; color is very important to layout, and this is an encyclopedia, after all. --M@rēino 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

California actors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as per option B --Kbdank71 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate categories have been created for California film actors and California television actors. The articles added to them are being taken out of the national categories. By-state categories are of marginal value at the best of times, but these ones are egregious. Making state of origin/residence/whatever unspecified criteria anyone feels like using, the primary means of sorting American actors in each field doesn't reflect how the industry works and massively impedes access and navigability. There is also the potential for horrendous category clutter if stage, radio, voice, musical theatre, child etc by-state categories follow. Time taken: huge; clutter created: huge; value added: negative. Two actions are required to fix this situation: Actions required:

Chicheley 03:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Category:California film actors. C56C 06:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. Olborne 13:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these actors Actors from California...?  David Kernow 14:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination, American film and television actor categories need subdivision. This is no different to English and Scottish film and television actors. California actors should be created as a parent category however. Tim! 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dividing by state is very different indeed from dividing the UK category (though that isn't a great idea either). The American categories are large, but that is not a problem, it's just a large profession. In any case there are effectively other methods of subdivision: Category:Actors by series contains many of the same people and the A-Z index can be used as a form of subdivision, and one that is more useful than this too boot. Landolitan 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This is over-zealous sub-categorisation. Osomec 12:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, but really I don't want to see any state divisions by actor, because from a state does not mean one's acting is actually connected with that state. Most film and television actors act at one time or another in California, and actors in mass media are of course really acting on a national (or international stage). It's really just trivia. So why not just delete (or merge into approp. American categories)? Postdlf 22:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport b, Oppose a. State divisions of actors is horribly stupid because most actors have to move out to California to make a decent living, so that category will end up with virtually all American actors (and plenty of non-American actors!) in it. --M@rēino 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:User images[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User images to Category:Wikipedian images

  • Rename to use standard naming convention for Wikipedian categories. Cswrye 03:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the latter could be ambiguous. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 21:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The guidelines for naming categories state that categories related to Wikipedians should have the word "Wikipedian" in the name. What do you think is too ambiguous about it? As an alternative, what do you think about Category:Images of Wikipedians? --Cswrye 17:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Last native speakers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Last known speakers of a language --Kbdank71 19:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Last native speakers to Category:Last speakers

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Mining towns in Australia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete this category and its subcats:

Category:Mining towns in Victoria
Category:Mining towns in the Northern Territory
Category:Mining towns in Western Australia
Category:Mining towns in Tasmania
Category:Mining towns in South Australia
Category:Mining towns in Queensland
Category:Mining towns in New South Wales

I think that they set a bad precedent for economic activity by place categories, which could be problematic in the long run if they are to include historic and current economic activites. There are also some problems with how the categories are defined and could be thought of as misleading since many mining towns aren't just mining towns, and there are numerous towns associated with the mining industry where there is no mining.--Peta 02:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment This is problimatic and may be have an issue with precedents, from a Western Australian prespective the developement of the state has been significantly impacted by various mining booms, and busts. I would have thought that the more detailed form Category:Gold mining towns in Western Australia, also Iron, coal as a subcat of these. As a side thought my 14 year son is doing homework on "the effect of gold mining on WA". Gnangarra 11:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I find it problematic as I have a western australia and western tasmanian experience where there are and were towns specifically mining only, with little or no current alternative economic activity at all - and it does fit in many specific examples. But looking back at the Mining project talk page where the issue and categories came from, I remain entirely ambivalent - I can see arguments that in some states there are historic mining towns have become in effect tourist towns. I do agree with above - maybe more detailed titles might save the day? SatuSuro 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • extra comment I dont know if I am missing something, but there is in the main Mining in Australia article mention of Company town I would have thought it should have been mentioned in this discussion? SatuSuro 12:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • followup comment As already stated, there are towns in Western Australia and Tasmania which only ever have been mining. From some of the issues that have been raised - as long as in the articles there is sufficient explanation of the status of the town within the category I would tend towards Keep with reservation about broad inclusions in this category SatuSuro 12:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these categories were created following a discussion at Talk:Mining in Australia#Categories for mining. The Category:Mining towns in Victoria is well populated and to my mind it is meaningful. Underpopulated categories are not given as the rationale for deletion here. Whether or not mining still occurs in a town is not the point, as per the discussion when these categories were established. The town's development is invariably affected if mining has been a major industry in its past and mining towns have much in common with each other. As per User:Gnangarra, the topic is often one for research and these cats allow menaingful groupings of towns with similar backgrounds. As other editors have commented when the cats were being set up : A town can easily become a mining town (after a nearby mine is established). However, towns never really seem to lose their "mining town" status because the presence of a mine near a town brings a lot of unique people and helps drive business in certains ways and as such, the town's culture is heavily influenced by the prescence of the mine. So, even after a mine shuts down many things reminescent of the mining culture still remain. If a mining company abandons a town for a long time I believe it becomes an "old mining town" but the mining town status still remains. (User:Blastcube) and Towns can become mining towns, but they can never drop the tag if they have ever been a mining town. (User:ScottDavis) I don't see any bad precedent being set - mining is major and distinctive economic activity and its impact lingers, often physically as well. It is a common categorisation of twons in ordinary parlance.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was initially skeptical about the creation of the categories, but was successfully convinced that the category is meaningful and can be defined objectively. --Scott Davis Talk 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above reasons for keeping. (JROBBO 12:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedians by sport (playing)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done to parallel preceding recommendation.--Mike Selinker 03:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedians by sporting team (support)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start on the Wikipedian sports teams categories. I left alone the ones for soccer, rugby, and other sports popular outside of North America, because I'm not sure what users from those countries would want.--Mike Selinker 00:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Black and white films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black and white films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Incredibly pointless category. Ibaranoff24 00:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. BoojiBoy 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Going to be huge. The JPStalk to me 01:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also hard to populate. :) --Shane (talk/contrib) 03:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - popularity is not a reason to delete. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A category for black and white films made after say 1960 would be more interesting than this category. Landolitan 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category should be deleted because it's pointless category, and it's unnecessary category. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sometimes I just don't understand you people! I have friends who are photographers, videographers, and filmmakers, and almost all of them have very strong opinions on which situations call for B&W and which for color. Every single film that has a B&W portion should have that mentioned in the article AND should be linked to an easy way to find other B&W films -- that means a cat. Without this cat, we are not doing our best to fulfill our duty as an encyclopedia for the field of visual arts. --M@rēino 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. C56C 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Bluap 20:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; useful, especially when discussing film of the last ~40 years. A bot could automatically populate the first several decades' worth of Category:Films by year into this category. -Sean Curtin 21:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Much too broad. JW 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_2&oldid=1136105073"