Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 9

April 9

Category:Stampede Wrestling Alumni

The entries in this category have been manually moved to Category:Stampede Wrestling alumni, rendering the original category redundant. McPhail 02:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as requested. Nathcer 03:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subcategories of Category:Computer vision

The following are badly named and need renaming:

im not totally happy with the new names so any suggestions are welcome, but they definately need changing from whats there now. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, except how about making /people into Category:Computer vision researchers? ×Meegs 12:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bongo Flava to Category:Tanzanian hip hop musicians

Totally unneccessary delinieation by subgenre. Until I just added a catmore template there wasn't even any description of what on earth "Bongo Flava" is. Bongo Flava is itself a mere redirect to Tanzanian hip hop, which says that "fusion is sometimes called Bongo Flava" (my emphasis). The hip hop by nation categories are already way too deep and underpopulated so this to me is a very clear merge candidate. kingboyk 18:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Easier to understand. Nathcer 03:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested.--Urthogie 15:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British MPs

All four newly created today - articles were previously in Category:British MPs. MPs are elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom on equal terms. I see no clear reason to subdivide them by the nation in which their constituency lies. Also the new names are horrendously long! Action appears to be unilateral on the part of the editor who made the change despite there being no consensus as per the ongoing discussion on whether to divide and/or rename this cat. (See Category talk:British MPs). Valiantis 18:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please note that Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Irish constituencies (1801-1922) has not been included in this nomination. Bhoeble 14:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then everyone should discuss possible divisions at Category talk:British MPs before making future changes, if any. The current names are too long and inconsistent anyway, and there is no category for pre-1921 Irish MPs. JRawle (Talk) 18:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge but rename. Since the category (rather unhelpfully) seems to contain MPs from all time ("This is a category listing current and former Members of the United Kingdom House of Commons") it could grow to many thousands of entries. "MPs are elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom on equal terms" is utterly irrelevant - this isn't politics, it's a Wikipedia CSD. Does it make navigational and organisational sense to subcategorise British MPs? Yes, I'd say so. Is subcategorising them by state a decent solution? Well, it's not the only way but it will suffice (by era or Party are other options). Rename to English MPs, Northern Irish MPs, Scottish MPs, Welsh MPs. --kingboyk 18:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I don't think "English MPs, Northern Irish MPs" etc is useful. It could cause confusion of whether we are talking about the nationality of the MP, or the location of their constituency. At least the current title is clear. Astrotrain 18:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, those category names are out of the question. Bhoeble 14:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now - some kind of split would probably be useful, but should be discussed and agreed upon first -- AJR | Talk 02:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now per nom. CalJW 02:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename to Category:Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom. it s become standard policy across the encyclopedia to spell-out initialisms in cat page names Mayumashu 04:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator all back into "British MPs", but it does indeed need a better name. It cannot be renamed to "Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom", because it's actually "Members of the lower Houses of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the United Kingdom of Great Britiain and Ireland, of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland". In short. And that's, err, a tad too long. :-) James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge, but Rename the Northern Irish category to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Irish constituencies. These catergories are named in line with other similar categories, see:

Admittedly the new names are long, but as User:Astrotrain says, at least they are clear. It is very hard indeed to know how they could be renamed without obscuring what they are.

I note that another new subcategory to British MPs is underway too, see Category:British female MPs. --Mais oui! 11:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that female MPs should still be listed in the main Category:British MPs (or whatever subdivisions are decided on) as per Wikipedia guidelines:

For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category

A similar discussion is taking place about female life peers JRawle (Talk) 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge The new categories are useful and pertinent imo. An Siarach
Oppose Merge New categories are natural and helpful subcategories; might be better classifying current MPs and past MPs separately. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge. People elected MPs in Ireland from 1801 are Irish MPs elected to the United Kingdom parliament. They were not British MPs. Westminister was the parliament of the UK of Great Britain and Ireland. While English/Scottish/Welsh MPs can be labelled as British, this is not possible for MPs elected in Ireland. They were born in Ireland, socialised in Ireland and (most) described themselves as Irish. Whatever the case, an Irish category would feature as a subcategory of the categories British MPs and Irish politicians. --Damac 13:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom The above point is irrelevant as Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Irish constituencies (1801-1922) has not been included. It is highly POV to categorise MPs by the location of their constituencies as Parliament operates primarily on party lines not national lines and cross categorising both attributes would be cumbersome and generally undesirable. Bhoeble 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the merits of that argument. MPs of Sinn Fein are British MPs, but would thoroughly object to being called "British". At any rate, these categories are merely sub-categories, not replacements. The four-fold country divide in the Commons makes perfect sense, especially in the context of the West Lothian question, and are besides not alternatives to the British MPs category, but merely subcategories. If MPs were sorted by nationality, then I'd be against it, but by country constituency makes perfect sense, and I'm not sure I understand why anyone would oppose such a sensible thing. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The may object, but in normal English usage "British" is the adjective for the UK. If these categories aren't merged I will start categories by party to reduce the clear bias towards nationalist priorities that this system creates, but I really don't want to do that. Bhoeble 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategories by party also seems very obvious, desirable and useful, and I am very surprised that these have not been started long ago. --Mais oui! 14:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge, especially for Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Ireland constituencies to Category:British MPs. Westminister is the parliament of the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. British MPs come from Britain, United Kingdom MPs come from the United Kingdom. Britain and United Kingdom are not synonymous.--Damac 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said they are, but British is the adjective for the UK. The English language is full of irregularties. Bhoeble 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, there are categories and subcategories for Category:British_people, even though they all hold the same passports. Why should this category on MPs be any different?--Damac 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are all members of one insttution and the category is for that institution. It is not an occupational category. Bhoeble 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could eaisly find a different category system:
Category:British MPs who have had an affair with their secetaries

Category:British MPs who go badger spotting in well known gay sex cruising zones

Category:British MPs who think forget they are actually supposed to be politicans and instead spend most of their time appearing on panel gameshows and reality TV shows Astrotrain 14:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge British MPs is far too woolly a cat name and potentially vast; division by party will be as arbitrary and is workable only for a minority of all MPs; division by country seems clear-cut by comparison. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, bring back Category:British MPs. The point of categories is to bring similar people together. This defeats that. Why send Enoch Powell×2 or Ramsay MacDonald×3 all over the place? --Henrygb 16:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Female Digimon~~
~~Empty and inappropriate. Circeus 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete - All Digimon have both genders. Plau 15:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While some digimon display female characteristics Digimon are generally considered genderless, and a digimon type is essentially a species anyway so as Plau said, there could conceivable be multiple genders, therefore category is meaningless. Shiroi Hane 02:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Digimon are genderless, as above. Jedi Amara 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Halo 2 Weapons~~
Category only contains three articles, all of which are lists of weapons. It's doubtful that the individual weapons should be broken out into separate articles any time soon, so the three lists could just be put in Category:Halo 2 and Category:Computer and video game weapons. — TKD::Talk 14:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Buildings duplicated at Legoland, Windsor~~
~~Not notable, many in category are not buildings. Better suited to a single list article JBellis 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete Not an important attribute of the buildings. Bhoeble 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify. mattbr³⁰ 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention in the Legoland Windsor article. --kingboyk 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Scottish MPs to Category:Members of the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament~~

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

The result of the debate was discussion already completed. - EurekaLott 13:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completing existing CfR process from 30 March (has there been a vote elsewhere I can't find?). I support this change for consitency with Category:Members of the pre-1707 English Parliament and to avoid confusion with current UK MPs for Scottish constituencies. Mtiedemann 11:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote was completed and the decision was to rename. - EurekaLott 13:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
~~Category:Australian Rules football grounds to Category:Australian rules football grounds~~
~~The term 'Australian Rules' is incorrect capitalisation. Remy B 10:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Comment Category:Australian Rules coaches and Category:Australian Rules footballers are also now tagged for renaming, that is the removal of the capital Rs. Bhoeble 14:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Conditional support. I'm no expert on this, so if there's an Australian who thinks it should be capitalized, then I buy that. But if this is changed, then category:Australian Rules footballers and category:Australian Rules coaches should also change.--Mike Selinker 17:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree, they should also be renamed. Remy B 18:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a further clarification, Australian Rules football redirects to Australian rules football, which demonstrates the correct capitalisation. Remy B 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise here, but support matching the article name. For what it's worth, newspapers using the term in Google news are pretty well split between ARF, ARf, and Arf. ×Meegs 07:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. I have added the other categories. Bhoeble 14:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:People who died from smoking~~
~~An empty category, and one whose criteria is difficult to judge. Better to use the subcategories of category:Cancer deaths.--Mike Selinker 08:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete & use cancer cats. There's no way to be sure that smoking was the cause of any individual's death. ×Meegs 08:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sufficiently verifiable. Bhoeble 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Villages of Cumbria~~
~~redundant to Category:Villages in Cumbria~~
merge as per nom. Bhoeble 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:São Paulo Athletic Club players~~
~~redundant to Category:São Paulo Futebol Clube players~~
Merge per nom. Bhoeble 15:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator, though this is getting to the point where we say "use English 'translation' over original name". James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Fires to Category:Historic fires~~
~~Renaming this category adds relevance and makes the topic more interesting. All articles about fires at Wikipedia should have historical significance. GilliamJF 05:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Rename as nom GilliamJF 05:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Since events included in the category are notable, the modifier adds nothing meaningful to the name. The reverse renaming took place in September. - EurekaLott 18:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per EurekaLott. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per EurekaLott. Bhoeble 14:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The nominator rightly states "All articles about fires at Wikipedia should have historical significance". Therefore the word "historical" is understood anyway. Same applies to all WP cats. Valiantis 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Russian counter-revolution people to Category:Russian counter-revolutionaries~~
~~(a) shorter (shock horror); (b) not all members of this category are persons. Cf also Category:Counter-revolutionaries. David Kernow 05:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Rename as nom. David Kernow 05:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Places of worship in Isreal~~

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redundant, spelling counts -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. David Kernow 05:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. David Kernow 05:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The correct form is Category:Ice hockey in Spain. Bhoeble 15:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by its creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. David Kernow 05:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
~~Category:Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005) players~~

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
blanked by User:Ccwaters -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. David Kernow 05:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like it was replaced by category:Utah Grizzlies (IHL) players, which is fine. I created the original category, and I'm fine with this.--Mike Selinker 07:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
~~Category:Victims of the Night of the Long Knives~~
~~blanked by its creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Speedy delete Bhoeble 15:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I dunno. Do we have a list for this? Possibly information worth having. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I agree it's interesting ... if someone wants to populate it, I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:West Adelaide Soccer Club players~~
~~blanked by User:Cursive -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Elections in the European Union and Category:European Parliament results~~
The first of these categories was previously listed in Category:Elections by country which was POV because the EU is not a country. It should be renamed Category:European Parliament elections, which describes its purpose accurately. However Category:European Parliament results also exists and I can't see that it is needed as well as the Category:European Parliament elections so it should be merged into Category:European Parliament elections as well. Some of the content will need to be moved, but that is the case anyway. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge per nom. David Kernow 05:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/merge per nom. Bhoeble 15:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/merge both to "Europenan Parliament elections results"; "European Parliament results" sounds like it could refer to the divisions and their outcomes. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Olympics by sports federation~~
The parent category of the category listed below and three categories that were listed yesterday. Grouping one or two sports by the names of bodies that most people have probably never heard of just isn't helpful. The Olympics articles are already grouped by sport, which the appropriate thing to do. Golfcam 03:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom Golfcam 03:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 15:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:FIS at the Olympics~~
This nomination makes a set with the other three listed below. Grouping one or two sports by the names of bodies that most people have probably never heard of just isn't helpful. The Olympics articles are already grouped by sport, which the appropriate thing to do. Golfcam 03:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom Golfcam 03:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 15:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Age of Mythology characters~~
~~There is only one page in this category, and the category won't get bigger. ЄИЄЯפЇЄ 02:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]~~
~~Support~~ Opps, I meant Delete This is from back when each individual AoM character had an article. However, they have been merged into a parent article, making this category redundant. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 03:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 15:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Bridgetown buildings~~
~~Made redundant by Category:Buildings and structures in Bridgetown, the correctly named category -- Francs 2000 01:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Merge per nom. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, as category empty. David Kernow 05:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Bhoeble 15:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]