Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 28

< July 27	July 29 >

July 28[edit]

Category:Chess problemist[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 13:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Speedily renamed/redirected in March, no conceivable reason to be used. Lkjhgfdsa 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redirect takes up under 1K of server space, and the "conceivable reason" for its use is so that when people leave the "s" off of Category:Chess problemists, it still gets redirected to the correct category. --M @r ē ino 15:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make into soft redirect using {{Categoryredirect}}; otherwise it doesn't work. Septentrionalis 22:16, 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:Television anchors by city[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 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television anchors by city to Category:Television news presenters by city

Rename, to be consistent with the current name of the article News presenter (News anchor currently redirects to there). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split to Category:Television newscasters by city & Category:Television news anchors by city based on local convention. If you read News presenter you will see that the article name is basically used in the intro. Other terms are used throughout when talking about the name in various countries. Vegaswikian 02:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a U.S. only subcategory and its parent is Category:American television journalists. There is no need to have a global "by city" category as their are few other countries where media markets are broken down by city in the way they are in the U.S. I don't care what semantic choices are made, but the final names must include of the United States Honbicot 23:34, 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:Ocarina of Time characters[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 13:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred from PROD as PROD does not and should not do categories 132.205.45.148 22:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not necessary; Category:Characters from The Legend of Zelda series assumes the single article that was placed here. – 06:45, 28 July 2006 user:Tryforceful

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Images claimed as photographs[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 13:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat makes no sense to me. --musicpvm 20:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if it's meant to be a category for non-photographic images manipulated to appear more photographic, or photographs that have been manipulated (e.g. putting a different face on a photograph of a person, etc). If such a category or categories are to exist, maybe Category:Manipulated images with subCategory:Altered photographs...? David Kernow 23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, if you look at Template:Notphoto you see it places images in this cat. Thus, it's some kind of disputed image tag, but without any recommendation or process for dealing with it. I've alerted WikiProject Illustration and WikiProject Photography about this discussion and the template, as they'll probably have a better idea how to deal with it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea! Thanks, David Kernow 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category in any case as it is no use to anyone. Nathan Mercer 09:38, 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:Italian_saints to Category:Roman_saints[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 13:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This request could arguably fall under the speedy criteria renaming policy because of its non-conformance to the "by country" categorization, however, it might also generate debate, and I so posted it here instead – Regardless, please read the entire argument before adding comments.

Category heading is Anachronistic. Almost all of the Saints listed in this category were not Italians nationally or by citizenship, living in the first millennium during the time of the Roman Empire, and long before Italy formed as a nation-state. Roman citizens did not see themselves as Italians, and were not necessarily even Latins, Rome being a cosmopolitan empire. Certainly most would have identified nationally with some nation than Italy (Gaullic, Etruscian, Pisian, Germanic etc) Italy as a country did not exist until 1861 and we can't support the claim that all Roman Saints were Italian saints. Therefore its very misleading to call the category Italian saints.

I recommend that we rename the “Italian_saints” to “Roman_Saints”, however I also recommend we re-add a new category “Italian_saints” and recategorized any Saints venerated after 1861 back to this new category both preserving the national identification and better reflecting historical realities.
--LinuxDude 18:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is unnecessary. There is already a Category:Roman saints, so no renaming is necessary. Articles should simply be recategorised. -- Necrothesp 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Category:Roman saints is the smaller of the two. It would make more sense to carry-through the rename, and recategorize the fewer entries in Category:Roman saints --LinuxDude 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the Western Roman Empire is generally considered to have fallen in the 5th century, I think categorising most of those currently in Category:Italian saints as Romans would be equally anachronistic. Most of them appear to date from after the 5th century and people living under the Holy Roman Empire or the city states are unlikely to have identified as "Roman". -- Necrothesp 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Good point - and I had thought of that. Still, some correction needs to be done here. How do you propose to handle thouse identified as Italian Saints between 5thish-6thish century and 1861? Holy Roman Empire Saints? --LinuxDude 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Personally, I think the post-5th century saints should still be classified as "Italian". We couldn't possibly classify them all by their nationality, since in many cases they would identify only with a city. Although you're of course right that the Kingdom of Italy was only created in the 19th century, I think that categorising them as Italian is still more useful than anything else. Italy may not have existed as a nation state, but the term was still used for the area. -- Necrothesp 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have finished recategorizing any 5th-century or earlier saints as Roman rather than Italian. I have fixed those post-5th-century ones that I had already changed before corresponding with Necrothesp. --Wclark 20:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Good job Wclark. In light of the problem dealing with the Saints in the middle (post Roman empire, pre Italian state), it isn't worth keeping this open. I think we have probably corrected this as much as we are going to. Thanks all. --LinuxDude 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This proposal is without merit and the idea that it might qualify for speedy is just absurd. We are flexible in categorising by nationality, and it is routine to classify Italian, Germans, Poles, Indians and many others by those nationalities, even if they were never citizens of a state with the exact matching name. Osomec 21:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP is not uniform in its use of "Roman", so Roman saints may have several ambiguous meanings: Saints who lived in and during the Roman Empire, Saints who were born in the city of Rome, Saints who had sufficient connections to the city of Rome to be considered "Roman" (under whose POV?), Saints recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, are a few that come to mind. It would be best if the category would specifically be titled such one would know which of these (or something else) is meant. Also, the "by country" breaks down both historically as borders and politics have changed, and in particular with saints who undertook far-flung missionary work may be born in one country but evangelized another. Carlossuarez46 22:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreeing with the statement by Carlossuarez46 immediately above. I also agree/support that the "Italian" saints from the time period of the Roman Empire (vs the Holy Roman Empire) should simply be moved. (If I read correctly above, that has already been done?)

However, I don't believe that the category name is accurate enough. How about: Roman Catholic saints of the Roman Empire. Any other thoughts?

(As for the "home" of saints, perhaps just use whatever the RC church decided on. Francis of Assisi (born) as opposed to Mother Teresa of Calcutta (worked), for example.)

- Jc37 01:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - I don't really understand this nomination, the city of Rome is a subset of Italy, so how can you merge all of the Italian saints into a category of just Roman saints? Not every Italian Saint was from Rome. And if you're making an allusion to "Roman Catholic" ... that seems ill-advised, and it really doesn't come across well. --Cyde↔Weys 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Here "Roman" refers to the Roman Empire, not the city proper. The issue was that many of the saints listed as "Italian saints" were from Roman times, and so the label of "Italian" was anachronistic. Those individuals have been recategorized already, and so this cfd is actually moot. --Wclark 01:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as outlined above. Casper Claiborne 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, they were (most of them) from Italy; but in fact calling St. Paulinus of Nola or St. Martin of Tours Roman saints is extremely misleading. We should restrict Roman saints to those who actually resided in Rome, rather than dragging every saint from 212 to 476 into the category. Septentrionalis 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested above, perhaps a more accurate category name: Roman Catholic saints of the Roman Empire. - Jc37 11:50, 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.

Newspapers published in the United States[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 -- Drini 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (unfinished move)[reply]

Categories for the subject of newspapers by sub-national entities in Canada and the United States currently use different naming conventions. I believe they should be standardized to one naming convention for both. For sub-categories of Category:Canadian newspapers, "published in X" is the naming convention currently used (Ex: Category:Newspapers published in Alberta). For sub-categories of Category:American newspapers, "of X" is the naming convention currently used (Ex: Category:Newspapers of Arizona). As there is no reason to having different naming conventions for the contents of these two categories, I believe either the "published in X" wording or the "of X" wording should be chosen and applied to all sub-categories of the above. My preference is for the "published in X" wording to be chosen as it is much more precise, clear, and accurate than the wording "of X", which by itself is ambiguous in defined, exact meaning. Based on the above, the following renamings are proposed:

--Kurieeto 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename This makes sense, especially since there is a convention on Wikipedia of having natural objects be "of" and artificial objects be "in" whichever state to which it is referring. Katr67 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Casper Claiborne 13:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This is makes sense, especially for us in small states, newspapers carry news from multiple states (see Eagle Times) all the time. Good idea. H0n0r 03:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. Good idea. Bp28 03:06, 4 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:Dutch television channels[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 to Category:Television channels in the Netherlands -- Drini 00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, to be consistent with other entries in Category:Television stations by country. Tim! 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rename Category:Television channels in the Netherlands. There is no reason to change this name into American English. Chicheley 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative rename to Category:Television channels in the Netherlands as per Chicheley, provided this is the appropriate local usage. Kurieeto 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Note: "station" is not "American English" as most Americans use "channel" colloquially. "Station" is a technical term, not an American one -- see Television station and Television channel for a discussion of the differences. Most of the other category names use "station" so we should remain consistent. --Wclark 18:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative rename – see below. --Wclark 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, after looking into the categories further, things seem very confused. Some categories list just stations, others a mixture of stations and channels. Clearly the distinction is lost on a great many people. Briefly: a station broadcasts on a particular channel or frequency. For example, WPHL-TV is a television station in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area that broadcasts on television channel 17, and carries programming from the WB Television Network. In countries with state-run television systems or with smaller geographic areas in which each channel might only be broadcast by a single station, the distinction between station, channel, and network tends to blur. Since people in such countries probably have no idea what station is local to them (or even that the station is a distinct entity from the channel) it probably makes sense to focus exclusively on channels in such places, and to have BOTH a category for stations and a category for channels in places where people are more aware of the difference (such as the US and Canada). --Wclark 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the Netherlands is one of the only European countries where the distinction between channels and station could be understood. Before the liberalisation, Holland had a public broadcast model with three channels (Nederland 1, Nederland 2 and Nederland 3), shared by up to ten non-profit broadcast foundations = stations (like VPRO, VARA (broadcaster), EO). After the liberalisation this system was kept, next to privately owned channels. At present, the category lists the channels, not the stations. --LucVerhelst 10:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Television channels in the Netherlands per Chicheley. Station is an Americanism. The Americans may use "channel" as well, but the British certainly use station less. The British category is Category:television channels in the United Kingdom and it would be an obvious Americanism to call it Category:television stations in the United Kingdom. In British English television has channels and radio has stations. Osomec 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Television channels in the Netherlands per Chicheley. Olborne 06:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Television channels in the Netherlands per Chicheley. Bearcat 07:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Television channels in the Netherlands per Chicheley. Casper Claiborne 13:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to Category:Television stations in the Netherlands. The other 50 categories use "station", so it is obviously not just an American term. It should be consistent with the others and its parent. --musicpvm 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply While I agree that "station" isn't just an American term, I do question whether it's appropriate in this case. It appears as though the things actually being categorized are, in fact, channels and not stations. The distinction is clearer in the US because of its larger area and more decentralized broadcast model (which is why some people mistakenly think that "station" is just the American term for what everyone else calls a "channel") but cable channels are just that – channels. It might make the most sense to change all of these categories to read "channel" rather than "station" (including for the US). --Wclark 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A mass renaming to "channels" may work. Something should be done because the cats are currently very confusing. And there is also the additional Category:Television networks by country. --musicpvm 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Rename per Chicheley. See Television networks in the Netherlands. The word "television station" is mostly used in countries where call signs are used. Intangible 13:19, 4 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:Pseudoscientists[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 -- Drini 01:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pseudoscientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete – This category is just a bad idea. It's inherently pejorative and causes conflict among editors whenever it is applied to an article. It's also difficult to see the usefulness of such a category, except as a means of expressing a (negative) POV toward the subject of an article. There are certainly clear-cut cases where (almost) everybody will agree that the label "pseudoscientist" applies, but there will be countless other cases where the applicability will be a matter of opinion and will cause pointless conflict. The German equivalent of this category was purged several months ago, for similar reasons. --Wclark 16:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV per nom. Calsicol 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been discussed on Wikipedia before, and at some length, but I cannot recall the forum, it might even have been here. I didn’t find it on the talk page. Bejnar 19:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Labeling something incorrectly as pseudoscience is a tactic that has previously been employed by a few editors. In my view doubt about whether something is pseudoscience or not should be sufficient to keep it out of this classification, but the use of scientific jargon without scientific method is a real phenomenon, even in some scientific publications. The inclusion of all AIDS dissidents in this category is interesting as some of them simply question the absence of scientific method in the AIDS work. Disagreement with the science of others doesn’t make one a pseudoscientist. If it did, Galileo and the author of every other paradigm shift in science would be in this category. I favor (1) making a clear policy statement about the use of this category and (2) policing this category in accordance with that policy. Bejnar 19:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that pseudoscience is a real phenomenon, but I question whether there should be a category for pseudoscientists. The arguments for/against labelling any individual a pseudoscientist can be made on their respective article page -- a category is an absolute type of thing that affords no shades of grey or explanations, and so I don't think it's appropriate for this use. --Wclark 06:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherent POV judgment. --tjstrf 02:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a scientist I want WP to make a clear distinction between what is generally accepted science and what is pseudoscience, but I do not think this category does that. It just causes more heat than light. However, before it is deleted I suggest we need to be clear what is happening to the sub-categories. I assume these will remain. Is that correct. --Bduke 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Yes, the subcats will remain. They just won't be part of the broader class psuedoscientists.--tjstrf 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am going to refer to this guideline from Wikipedia:Categories: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." On the pseudoscience article, there are frequent debates about what is and is not pseudoscience and how the term should be defined. No doubt that the title of "pseudoscientist" will also be contested, but the categorization system does not explain why someone was listed in a category. Since far too many inclusions of individuals in this category would be controversial, I think that it is best if the category is deleted per the Wikipedia guideline. --Cswrye 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this Cfd troubling. The NPOV comment above is correct, but needs to be elaborated a little. NPOV and categories is a very tricky issue. Strictly speaking, including article x in category y does not mean that x is a y. what it means is that the article mentions or discusses y. However, with some categories, this can lead a user to infer incorrectly that x is a y. In some cases it may be necessary to divide categories in half. The broader category should have articles related to the topic, and the more specific category who's members clearly are a a y. I have tried this with Category:Hate crime, by creating Category:Hate crimes to hold articles dealing with crimes that were actually prosecuted as hate crimes. Both categories explain what articles should be in them. Even so, the Matthew Shepard article gets moved from one to the other and then back. Shepard's murder was widely considered to be a hate crime, and led to hate crime legislation that was defeated. His murderers were not charged with a hate crime. I'm not sure this solution will take, but perhaps something similar can be done here. If so, it would be important to look at the parent categories as well. Removing this category may result in all the subcategories being categorized as as scientists. Removing this category may be like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. So I think a broader solution needs to be discussed. -- Samuel Wantman 16:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Until I see a broader solution, I say Keep -- Samuel Wantman 04:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term might be pejorative, but deciding who goes in and who stays out of this category is very much NOT POV. There are well-known, centuries-old rules that people follow if they want to be real scientists. Don't follow them and still pretend that you're practicing science? You are a pseudoscientist. Bam. Simple. --M@rēino 03:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It's not as clear-cut as that. Read about the demarcation problem for more details. Also see the "Scientific theories once widely criticized as pseudoscience" section under the Pseudoscientist article. --Wclark 20:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per POV issues. Iola k ana|^T 11:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The point is that the decision to place someone in this category should NOT be a POV issue. It does not have to be. Some editors have abused this category. The question is not whether given scientists are accepted by the scientific community at any given point in time, it is whether they employ the scientific method and whether their results are replicable. Bejnar 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The scientific method is not itself well-defined. It changes quite regularly, in fact, with the most recent versions being just a few decades old. See the demarcation problem for some of the issues involved in deciding what is and what is not science. --Wclark 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, you've already voted! Please don't vote more than once. --Wclark 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, but it should be restricted to the clear-cut cases, where the description is justified in the article. Septentrionalis 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That sounds fine, so long as it could actually be enforced. How do you propose we do that? --Wclark 00:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strict use is not enforceable because anyone can edit Wikipedia. Nathan Mercer 09:39, 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:Japanese Media Popular in the Philppines[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 -- Drini 01:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese Media Popular in the Philppines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Listify, Not only is it misspelled, but it can be hard to categorize. --Howard the Duck 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a media ratings service. Piccadilly 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a media ratings service. --Wclark 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A notice of this discussion has been posted at the Filipino Wikipedians noticeboard --Howard the Duck 17:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Imagine the category clutter that could arise if a set of categories in the form Category:American media popular in... was started. Chicheley 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above --Noypi380 14:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Military media of the United States to Category:Media of the military of the United States[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 as proposed -- Drini 01:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military media of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Proposed new title is more precise and clearer. It also better follows the naming convention of Category:Military of the United States. Kurieeto 14:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The existing name makes me worried that I'll be attacked by armed DVDs. --Wclark 17:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Chicheley 18:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Contemporary Theocracy[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 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Contemporary Theocracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Rename to Category:Fundamentalism, which could then include all various types of fundamentalism. Theocracy is a form of government, while Fundamentalism is an ideology upheld by certain types of religious groups and political parties. It's not the same: Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald, for example (whom were included in this cat before I removed them) were supporters of absolute monarchy, not of theocracy, but they did have strong views on religion and against the alleged dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution. Tazmaniacs 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or separate and rename (1) Contemporary is a poor word choice in an encyclopedia. (2) This category is not really about Theocracy. It seems to be a mishmash of theocracies (Iran etc.), and those individuals and groups who espouse elimination of at least some aspects of the "separation of church and state", which prior to Tazmaniacs removal of names included those who espoused the divine right of kings. New separate categories might be something like "Theocracies (1950-2050)" and the poorly worded "Anti-separation of religion and government groups and individuals". Bejnar 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually "Theocracies (1950-2050)" is unnecessary since Category:Theocracies has in fact so few members. A positive statement of "Anti-separation of religion and government groups and individuals" might be Category:Supporters of clergy's role in government. Bejnar 20:52, 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:Performers by record label to Category:Musicians by record label[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 relisting here, Musicians by record label was not tagged for deletion. --Kbdank71 13:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The performers category should be merged into the musicians category as they both mean the same thing. All other categories use the term "musician". --musicpvm 07:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the distinction was that the first was to include all performers and musical groups, while the second was for individual musicians or singers. For example, George Carlin and Cheech and Chong also released records. I agree that merging them is a reasonable idea, but perhaps it should go the other way? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Comedians by record label" would be a good way to represent that particular group, to keep in line with the category naming idea of "profession by distinction". -/- Warren 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then create any necessary categories for non-musicians as per Warren. Calsicol 17:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be fine with a merge in either direction, but there should only be one category. As this is supposed to include both solo musicians and musical groups, Category:Performers by record label may be more accurate. Or how about Category:Artists by record label? This would be consistent with other categories such as Category:Albums by artist and Category:Songs by artist. --musicpvm 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:Artists by record label, per musicpvm. I think that's a very good idea. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:58, 1 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:Hotel chains in Pakistan[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 -- Drini 16:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one chain listed. Only 'by country' category. Parent cat is not over populated. Can be recreated later if needed. Vegaswikian 07:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --musicpvm 08:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Wclark 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 13:13, 4 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:Old-school Mac users[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 -- Drini 16:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old-school Mac users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, POV ridden category suggesting these people are somehow better than other mac users. Tim! 07:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_28&action=edit&section=15[reply]
Rename to “Longtime Mac users” as suggested on the category page itself. (Alternately, how about “O.G. Mac users”?) >:-) —Banzai! (talk) @ 07:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once Category:Mac users gets renamed Category:Wikipedians who use Macs or similar (see proposal to rename below), this category could be folded into the newly vacant Category:Mac users. Disclaimer: I'm the one who started this category, this evening, though others seem to be adding to it now. —Banzai! (talk) @ 07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, Inflammatory category and category description, highly trivial and POV.--Folksong 08:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial characteristic. People shouldn't be categorized by what operating system they use. And "old-school" makes it POV as well. --musicpvm 08:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as per above. --C mon 08:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV and trivial. (Added by user User:FrankCostanza)
Delete, POV and trivial. --Wclark 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and much too trivia for a category in any case. Osomec 21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with "People Who Use Computers" --Rubber cat 01:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You are not your operating system. -/- Warren 01:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Casper Claiborne 13:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined, not limited to Wikipedians, and (if documentable) presumably does address personality. As usual, if it's worth putting in the article, why not make a category? Septentrionalis 22:26, 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:Lithuanian voivodships[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 -- Drini 01:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Per consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, to make the spelling of "voivodeship" consistent. These are two leftover categories that were missed in an earlier CFR Elonka 05:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The correct forms which should be implemented are category:Voivodeships of Lithuania and Category:Historical voivodeships of Lithuania. Chicheley 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's an excellent point, that this would be a good time to get that taken care of as well. I have withdrawn my nomination, and submitted the new form, thank you for catching that! --Elonka 20:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:Mac users[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 -- Drini 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I believe this should be renamed in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), which states: “All User categories should have ‘Wikipedian’ (or ‘Wikipedians’) as part of the name.” As a side benefit, renaming this category to clarify its Wikipedian-specific nature would free up Category:Mac users for general use. —Banzai! (talk) @ 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --tjstrf 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I'd prefer Category:Wikipedians who use Macs though. --musicpvm 05:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! 07:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; like Musicpvm, I also prefer Category:Wikipedians who use Macs, it's more in line with standard Wikipedian naming convention. -/- Warren 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Any name that specifies the category is for Wikipedians only will do. Olborne 06:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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 towns and cities in Connecticut[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 -- Drini 16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional towns and cities in Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, only one article in category. Schzmo 00:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Breaking these out by state is useful to avoid category:Fictional towns and cities in the United States from overflowing, and to link to the real towns and cities. Besides, there will likely be more someday: the Atom's Ivy Town, Beetlejuice's Winter Hollow, et al.--Mike Selinker 05:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a state series. Vegaswikian 07:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike S. ×Meegs 08:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike S. Piccadilly 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike S. --Wclark 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Mike S. AgentPeppermint 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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