Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 11

< February 10	February 12 >

February 11[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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. GCarty 17:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Classical pianists by nationality [edit]

Duplicates "Classical pianists" and "Pianists by nationality". JonHarder 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: American classical pianists [edit]

Duplicates "Classical pianists" and "Pianists by nationality". JonHarder 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: British classical pianists [edit]

Duplicates "Classical pianists" and "Pianists by nationality". JonHarder 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: English classical pianists [edit]

Duplicates "Classical pianists" and "Pianists by nationality". JonHarder 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Not all pianists are classical pianists (Elton John for example). Also subdividing the immense classical pianists cat into nationality subcats seems like an emminently sensible move.--Mais oui! 08:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all. The classical pianists category is not immense (less than 400, I think that with the addition of remaining articles and the deletion of non-notable biographies the number should remain quite the same). I am monitoring the Classical pianists category for more than six months now and I can tell you that the 'pianists by nationality' categories are very small - more than half of them have less than 40 articles for sure. Further categorizing would mean a lot of work and it would result in many small categories. I don't really see the point in doing that. --Missmarple 10:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 400 is not small. As for the future, whether you think the category should grow or not, it is a very safe assumption that it will. CalJW 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dividing people up by nationality is problematic, confusing, and prone to error. The nationalities are not especially useful. A hundred years ago, the fact that a pianist was born in France made it very likely that this person had learned the French style of performance, but these schools no longer exist. Even the distinction between Classical and non-Classical is arbitrary as there are cross-overs, classically trained musicians who work in other genres. I would keep Classical Pianists and drop the national categories, at least for Classical. Lpgeffen 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Obvious standard people by nationality categories. Osomec 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all This comes up from time to time. The category system is an organisational and navigational tool. All people should be categorised by both occupation and nationality as this is the only way to ensure that the articles on related people all filter through to the same place. It also increases the number of routes to the articles and thereby increases the number of people who will read them. Previous claims that this very widely accepted system should not apply to certain fields have been rejected and this one should be too. CalJW 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per CalJW. —Blotwell 02:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessively detailed categories are distracting and annoying. And as Lpgeffen points out, nationality is not a particularly illuminating classification for pianists. Opus33 04:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all We cross categorise people by occupation and nationality, period. Debate over. I might categorise a few more when the server is working better. Piccadilly 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and populate. It actually combines both for a more specific category. --Vizcarra 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having looked at a few of these I see that "X pianists" has been treated as synomymous with "X classical pianists". That attitude to the relative standing of classical and other forms of music belongs not so much in the last century as in the one before that. The British, French and American pianist categories now also have jazz subcategories.Piccadilly 08:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and populate. GCarty 16:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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 12:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu could be for people or langauge... when ambiguous within Category:Films by language we add the word language gren グレン ^? 22:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Firstly, it is only necessary to add language when there is a possibility of confusing a nationality adjective with a language name (so we need to distiguish between "French films" - films from France - and "French-language films" - films with French dialogue. There is no possibility of this confusion with Telugu as there is no nation for which Telugu is a nationality adjective (and Telugu-people films is inherently meaningless so there is no ambiguity). Secondly, the grammatically correct form would be "Telugu-language films" (with a hyphen). Thirdly, I continue to prefer the format "Films in X" where X is the name of a language; this format avoids this problem, but I was unable to get consensus for a general re-name last month. Valiantis 15:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Palestinian militants to Category:Palestinians condemned or known for terrorist acts[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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 12:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian militants should be renamed to Category:Palestinians condemned or known for terrorist acts as it treats only of this kind of militants. Palestinian militants are not all terrorists!!!! The category could of course be maintained, but all terrorists moved to a subcategory of Category:Palestinian militants condemned or known for terrorist acts. Tazmaniacs 12:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC) In fact I just changed the description of the category as to include peaceful militants. However, a subcategory should probably be created in order not to encounter this type of situation another time. Tazmaniacs 13:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - merely moving entry from Speedy Renaming as it does not meet the criteria for speedy renaming. —akghetto ^talk 17:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if this catagory can also take peaceful militants (like you reworded it) then it shouldnt be changed. if you want to add a subcatagory for terrorists then make a subcatagory - but be careful how you name it! the word "terrorist" is avoided as being too emotional here. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category(POV). helohe (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposed name is awkward and unclear. (Also, peaceful militants is quite the oxymoron.) - EurekaLott 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although I sympathise with all the points made by the nominator I think this is the best available name for the category - or at any rate better than the convoluted alternative (and who will decide what are terrorist acts?) Palmiro | Talk 17:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, The name change would not accomodate the militants who are not condemned or known for terrorist acts, and who have a place on the list. pat8722 16:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:R6MaY89[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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 g7. Syrthiss 16:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this before I knew about this. Please delete it. ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 16:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

All "Region Beer and breweries" categories to "Beer and breweries of region"[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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. relist per bearcat's suggestion if needed or discuss on WP:BEER and bring a consensus.. Syrthiss 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Affected categories include: Category:Africa Beer and breweries, Category:Asia Beer and breweries, Category:Europe Beer and breweries, Category:North America Beer and Breweries, Category:Oceania Beer and breweries, Category:South America Beer and breweries.

Rename all. — BrianSmithson 15:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced of the need for this; it was done within the past couple of days to group national categories that were previously subcategorized directly in Category:Brewers and breweries. If there's a reason why we don't want national categories to be filed directly in "Brewers and breweries", then institute a single subcategory for either Category:Brewers and breweries by country or Category:Brewers and breweries by nationality. I don't think continental subcategories are needed. Bearcat 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was objecting more to the odd capitalization, but you have a point. — BrianSmithson 22:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Fictional sports players to Category:Fictional sportspeople[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename, with additional merge. Syrthiss 13:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match Category:Sportspeople. Osomec 14:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename and merge Category:Fictional athletes into it. Fictional athletes only has one entry, the subcategory Category:Fictional swimmers.--Mike Selinker 16:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Finnish Sea Captains to Category:Finnish sailors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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 13:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To fix capitalization and to make compliant with Category:Sailors Laisak 13:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT it looks like a subcat 132.205.45.148 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Members of the United States House of Representatives[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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. Syrthiss 13:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of name. They are not U.S. reps; they are Members of the U.S. House. The rest of the states should also be changed, but I'm starting with Mass. because I don't know how to do a large group change. —Markles 13:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and this should be done to all states. Also, "U.S." should always be spelled out as "United States". --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 15:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to do this for all states (& DC, puerto rico, etc.)?—Markles 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed heading and taging all of the articles. Will list them here shortly. Vegaswikian 05:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. —Markles 12:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - YAY SOMEONE ELSE RE-LISTED THEM SO I DON'T HAVE TO DO IT (as I was just about to). --Syrthiss 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the templates in the articles still need to be updated. I was out today and have not yet finshed this task, but given the number of rename attempts, I don't see this as a big problem. I think I changed them up to K or so. Template updated in all articles. Vegaswikian 03:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all; the new form is also more technically correct as Resident Commissioners and Delegates from Guam, D.C., Puerto Rico, etc. are Members but not Representatives.-choster 15:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Any suggestions on Category:Pre-statehood territorial delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives ro Category:Women in the U.S. House of Representatives? Vegaswikian 17:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support—unambiguous category

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

Republican Party renames[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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 13:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to follow form that seems to be accepted form based on earlier votes. - Vegaswikian 06:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. —Markles 13:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -choster 16:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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 based on novels[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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 after the fact, reminding WP:Films of process.. Syrthiss 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contents have migrated to new sub-cat Category:Films based on fiction books, per discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pegship (talk • contribs) .

Delete, it is now an empty category. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is empty. Lady Aleena 21:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Of course it is empty. They just migrated articles from "novels" to "fiction books". Geez. Also, I don't see any discussion or reason to make that change. Remember that wikipedia is a democracy, not a technocracy. --Vizcarra 23:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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