Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 6

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6

Category:People of Greenland to Category:Greenlandic people

For consistency with other nationalities. TheGrappler 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dp462090 (talk • contribs)
Rename in the interest of consistency.--Marysunshine 22:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Astors to Category:Astor family

Rename to match the other subcategories of category:American families. CalJW 23:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename per nom. Sumahoy 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Doc 01:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 13:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trade unions by country

A previous discussion here [1] was unable to reach a consensus on converting to Category:Trade unions in **** from Category:****ian trade unions. Further discussion has been started at WikiProject Organized Labour. Comments and opinions are welcome. --Bookandcoffee 22:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law by country

I suggest rename for consistency but would rather convert the other 70 or so categories in Category:Law by country to this format! Law "in" the Philippines definitely needs to be changed though, and suggest that "Russian Federation" would be better as "Russia" so historical laws e.g. from the Imperial period can be included. TheGrappler 21:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Fooian law Sumahoy 00:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, per nom.--ᎠᏢ4 62090^Contribs 01:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Fooian law Bhoeble 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. mattbr³⁰ 18:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programming language families

Category:Programming language dialects was merged to Category:Programming language families per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 26#Category:Programming language dialects to Category:Programming language families. This has created some duplicate subcategories within Category:Programming language families as well as an inconsistent naming convention. Recomend that these all be merged / renamed to programming language family as that is more general and dialects is a more specific case. -- JLaTondre 20:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename all, per nom.--ᎠᏢ4 62090^Contribs 01:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Scranchuse 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ReeseM 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultures by nationality

Category:Culture of Liechtenstein to Category:Liechtenstein culture ("Liechtenstein" is the adjective according to the CIA World Factbook)
Category:Culture of North Korea to Category:North Korean culture
Category:Culture of Jersey to Category:Jersey culture ("Jersey" is adjective according to the societe jersiaise)
Category:Culture of Tatarstan to Category:Tatar culture
Category:Culture of Iceland to Category:Icelandic culture
Category:Culture of Serbia and Montenegro to Category:Serbian and Montenegrin culture
Category:Culture of the Falkland Islands to Category:Falkland Islander culture (consistent with e.g. Category:Solomon Islander culture)
Category:Culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian culture
Category:Culture of Grenada to Grenadian culture

Rename all consistent with most of the rest of Category:Culture by nationality. The few that are left as "Culture of Fooland" rather than "Fooian culture" would be cases where there would otherwise by ambiguity e.g. "Congolese" or "Dominican" would be ambiguous. TheGrappler 00:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Sumahoy 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose on Culture of Trinidad and Tobago. Trinidadian and Tobagonian Culture is clumsy, unidiomatic and excludes national culture. I think this would apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. General Oppose on all the others - if anything, we should be renaming in the opposite direction. Guettarda 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all, per nom.--ᎠᏢ4 62090^Contribs 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename some: not Trinidad and Tobago or Bosnia and Herzegovina Scranchuse 02:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename into culture by nationality, as suggested by the nominator. The current cat name violates WP:MOS, specifically, WP:NAME. __earth ^(Talk) 08:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename except Bosnia and Herzegovina and Trinidad and Tobago. Bhoeble 15:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns of Sicily to Category:Cities and towns in Sicily

Categories of settlements usually take the in form. CalJW 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC). Rename CalJW 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conservation areas of Mozambique to Category:Conservation in Mozambique

Rename to match the other 81 subcategories of category:Conservatiion by country. CalJW 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename per nom. ReeseM 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hill Stations in Pakistan to Category:Hill stations of Pakistan

Two separate CfDs have established that the correct category name is Hill stations of Pakistan, user:Fast track has moved lots of articles around between Pakistani categories that I am trying to unpick. I this instance a bot just needs to move all the article from one category to the other and delete the source category. Thryduulf 12:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 18:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The existing category is correct. Bhoeble 08:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was recently renamed after discussion. Settlements take the in form. CalJW 18:34, 6 May 2006

Category:Law of Sabah

Empty Delete.__earth ^(Talk) 17:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign relations of Sabah

empty. Furthermore, according to Malaysian Constitution (Sabah is part of Malaysia) the state has no power in foreign relationship. Delete.__earth ^(Talk) 17:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; also features faulty capitalization. David Kernow 14:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Welfare organizations in Sabah

empty. Delete.__earth ^(Talk) 17:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recreation & Sports in Sabah

Redundant. There's already Category:Sport in Malaysia to cater that. And since Sabah is a state of Malaysia, the logical step would be Sport in Sabah instead of Recreation & Sports in Sabah. Delete. __earth ^(Talk) 17:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CalJW 18:34, 6 May 2006
Delete; features ampersand and faulty capitalization. David Kernow 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with Alzheimer's disease

This is an empty category, categorizing Wikipedians, and I frankly suspect it was originally created as an attack category. In my opinion, it is a Bad Idea. Mak (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-limited category, if accurate. I concur that it's probably an attack category. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CalJW 18.48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Aldux 19:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Marysunshine 22:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NASCAR Rookie of the Year to Category:NASCAR Rookie of the Year award winners

Rename for pluralization and a little more specificity. Could also go to Category:NASCAR Rookies of the Year but I'm not sure I like that weird "secretaries-general" construction that is somewhat uncommon in English. Recury 15:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 18:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:NASCAR Rookie of the Year award winners per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:NASCAR Rookies of the Year...? David Kernow 14:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglo-Irish War (1919-1921) to Category: Irish War of Independence

Change to the latter as that is the most precise and common term. It is also the name of the article on that war in Wikipedia. El Gringo 14:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as more NPOV--Aldux 19:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the article title. If the article needs to be renamed to fit the current category name, nominate the article for renaming, and if it is renamed, then the category can follow suit. -Sean Curtin 19:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Journalism in Pakistan to Category:Pakistani media

Relist from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 24: The result of the debate was relist (tag was removed on 1 May, probably why there was only one vote) Tim! 11:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Tim! 11:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary complication and perhaps unique to Pakistan (I'm half way through checking the "journalists by country" cateogories and this is the first "Journalism" category I have encountered). Pakistan has a media category, and like other countries has or can have separate categories for each branch of media. Merge. Bhoeble 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Merge per nom. Merchbow 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. CalJW 18:35, 6 May 2006

Category:Kurdish cities

As per Category:Kurdish provinces at [2] --Cretanforever 10:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please join the on-going discussions of Kurdish categorization at Category talk:Kurdistan and Talk:Batman, Turkey. --Moby 11:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic and majority populations are citable. Open to a rename. --Moby 11:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom--Hattusili 12:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. "Kurdishness" is a matter both of degree and contention, and requires clarification. Perhaps it would be okay with a rename e.g. "Cities with a Kurdish majority population" but even that wouldn't be without arguments! I am trying to think of a potentially equivalent situation - I guess I would be happy with e.g. "Category:German-speaking villages in Romania" or "Category:German-speaking majority villages in Romania". TheGrappler 14:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TheGrappler I apriciate your efforts to find a middle ground so to speak. But I really do not see the point of categorising cities based on ethnicity, race, or language spoken. Cant such ratios be mentioned in the artice assuming its based on a census insted of indulging in lenghty category names? --Cat out 20:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the middle ground as attempting to make the category meaningful and verifiable. Once it is meaningful and verifiable we can then figure out whether it is a useful navigational aid. At the moment we have a meaningless and unverifiable category that serves a certain, limited, navigational purpose. Meaningfulness and verifiability trumps navigational ease because otherwise we open ourselves up to endless edit wars. The residual navigational benefit of a more carefully designed category is debatable (probably quite low, though, especially in comparison to listification and inclusion of the list in "see also" sections of relevant articles) but it's a debate we can't have until we find a way to sensibly design the category. At any rate, my position remains delete, but open to discussion if it can be defined better. TheGrappler 21:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible, but so far I am not convinced any category linking cities based on ethnicity has any real usage given ethnicity is a contraversial issue. What percentage qualifies as a majority? Which ethnicities deserve a category? If all thats an unreasoable list of ethnicities as there are probably hundereds of ethnicities in any metropolitan US city. --Cat out 21:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see what purpose collecting cities under an ethnicity category serve. --Cat out 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories are ment to be navigation aids. They are ment to keep articles related close by for people to edit articles of similar nature. If this categories is fine, so is Category:White cities. I doubt there is anything common between Paris, New York and Moscow and all are predominantly white.
--Cat out 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my nomination. User:Retau is unaccounted for despite being the initiator of all this categorization by the way. He didn't even respond to User:Moby Dick's request for comment [3] A list is OK with me in the sense that, since interminable discussions on ethnicity seem inevitable, I'd rather see them taking place within a specific article containing a list, rather than on the main articles for Turkey's cities (some of them rather high-profile like Diyarbakır and Van), although I understand User: Cool Cat's arguments on the principle. Drawing a list or category of White Cities is no different than the categories we are discussing here, and they would make reference to a certain reality in, say, South Africa. --Cretanforever 02:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That post was on another subject; I've just left him a note letting him know about these CFDs. --Moby 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't mind Category:Kurdistan, but these two new ones are pushing it. —Khoikhoi 22:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. --ManiF 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Gokhan 09:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bertilvidet 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each town must have statistics showing the majority. It is a helpful geopolitical category. It is not possible to have so many ridiculous ethnic categories and indifferently categorize personalities according to ethnic criterias without asking them, and at the same time refusing the Kurds to have ethnic categories! I suggest people who vote against read a bit about history of Turkey and Kurdistan in various countries since at least World War I. Tazmaniacs 15:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Beside, Kurdistan is a geographic expression, while this category "Kurdish cities" define according to demographics, not geography, i.e. they are not the same cat. Tazmaniacs 15:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War on terror

Cateogries entitled with a propaganda term can never be made neutral. (original proposal by De mortuis...) Añoranza 08:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the proposed new name ? US War on Terror ? We still need a name for the replacement category. -- PFHLai 09:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:War on Terrorism. It's general convention that the category for a war carries the same title as the article on that war; if you want a general renaming, take it up at WP:RM. Kirill Lok s h in 16:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is that it isn't a war, that is just a claim made by George W. Bush for his personal political advantage. CalJW 18:38, 6 May 2006
- It's hardly unique in that sense; see the rest of Category:War on something. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can come up with few... War on Adultry, War on Child labor. Or less noble ones such as War for peace. ^_^ --Cat out 22:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What would qualify as a war on terror? If this is the US war on terror the category should suggest it in its title. I do not how aver in any way endorse this category or any similar category. War on terror can be a fine article but is definately a poor choice of a category. --Cat out 22:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bushite propaganda phrase. The U.S. articles can go in category:Foreign relations of the United States and the other articles can go wherever is appropriate on a case by case basis. Sumahoy 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Kirill Lokshin. --Aldux 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have died in hotel rooms

If we want to keep this, it should be relocated to a less awkward title. Perhaps:

Category:People who died in hotel rooms
Category:People found dead in hotel rooms
Category:Hotel room deaths

Using the present perfect tense implies, for many readers, that the subject is still living, which is confusing in the context of this category. — May. 6, '06 [07:52] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Why don't you just move it? Añoranza 08:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'd like some input as to what the best title would be, and I had three different ideas come to mind. — May. 6, '06 [09:37] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Categories can not be renamed by moving: they must be proposed here at WP:CFD, then deleted and remade. ×Meegs 09:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – ~~I'm not certain if we should have this cat, but all three options would be an improvement. I very slightly prefer People found dead in hotel rooms.~~ ×Meegs 09:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...to Category:People who died in hotel rooms. Though I don't like the uncertain induction that people died where they were found, Doc's point below about bystanders in the room during the death is more important. ×Meegs 15:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People found dead in hotel rooms. "Hotel room deaths" notably matches the category:Firearm deaths, suggesting a causal link between the hotel room and the death.--Mike Selinker 13:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many people inflate the count of "Firearm deaths" by including anyone who had a firearm when they died — I'm not sure there's that much difference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps rename Category:Firearm deaths to Category:Deaths by firearm? David Kernow 14:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, but that's not this nomination. Let's not confuse the admins like we did the last time, David. :^) --Mike Selinker 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Category:1960s deaths does not consist entirely of drug overdoses either. — May. 6, '06 [19:20] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Rename to Category:People who died in hotel rooms. 'found' implies that they died alone and were found, which could technically eliminate many names from the list. Doc 14:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be wrong, but I think the "found dead" part is part of the original intention of the category.--Mike Selinker 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to have a subcategory "Category:people who died in hotel rooms while editing wikipedia"? Añoranza 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People who died in hotel rooms. mattbr³⁰ 18:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People found dead in hotel rooms so category may include anyone moved into a hotel room but died/killed elsewhere – unless that (unusual) circumstance meant to be excluded...? David Kernow 14:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dukes of Osuna

Unused. Conscious 07:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as there is Category:House of Osuna and List of Dukes of Osuna which meet the needs of this category. mattbr³⁰ 18:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Marysunshine 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. David Kernow 14:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English architecture writers

Unused. Conscious 07:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to Category:British architecture writers -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per ProveIt. mattbr³⁰ 18:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ProveIt. David Kernow 14:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney Character to Category:Images of Disney characters

The category contains the images of Disney characters and is populated by {{DisneyCharacter}}. The current name is not descriptive. Conscious 07:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Catagory description can be found inside page. When adding tag to image DisneyCharacter is easy to remember to insert, you don't want to rename DisneyLogo to Logos from Inside The Walt Disney Company. LordBleen 23:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This category could be confused with Category:Disney characters, and the name of the category needs to reflect the contents of the category. The use of the {{DisneyCharacter}} will be unaffected, the images will just be categorised in a different place. mattbr³⁰ 18:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per mattbr³⁰ (also removes faulty capitalization). David Kernow 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dinosaur

Empty and redundant to Category:Dinosaurs. Marked as category redirect, not sure why. Conscious 04:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to Category:Dinosaurs -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. CalJW 18:40, 6 May 2006
Redirect per ProveIt. David Kernow 14:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indo China

This is a category about "things which are common to both India and China", apparently a misunderstanding of what "Indo China" means. Content is currently limited to one subcat, Category:Indo China Kingdoms. Something will have to be done about that as well. Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Scranchuse 02:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misused term. __earth ^(Talk) 08:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldux (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. David Kernow 14:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Childrens Books on Homosexuality to Category:Children's books about sexuality

Corrected punctuation and caps; more accurate description. Her Pegship 03:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That's not more accurate, as it would allow for the works of Judy Blume, say, who wrote about sex but not homosexuality. This category documents the same-sex family children's book phenomenon, and thus shouldn't reach beyond that. So I suggest a rename to category:LGBT children's books to parallel category:LGBT art, category:LGBT newspapers, et al. (And we should remove the word "heterosexual" from the description, as that's not part of the "LBGTQIPPS" uber-acronym.)--Mike Selinker 13:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like Mike, I oppose greatly broadening what is now a nicely-sized and appropriately-focused category. I have reservations about Mike's suggestion, though, because while LGBT newspapers are written largely with LGBT readers in mind, most of these books are not. Also, I may be wrong, but I'm not certain how much the B and T factor into these books' subject matter. Though I don't like excluding B and T, the best I've been able to come up with is Category:Children's books about homosexuality. Any other options? ×Meegs 15:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and looked at the LGBT categories for guidance. Everyone who's categorized as one of these categories is listed in Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people. So there's a clear WIkipedia preference for grouping people of these categories together. The LGBT label applies to all works that focus on any of the categories (and I expect very few focus on all of them).--Mike Selinker 19:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be too – I was trying to rationalize excluding bisexual and transgender, speculating that they may well not be addressed in any of these books (most of which are about same-gender parents). In any case, I'd rather have an inclusive cat, so if there's a non-awkward way to say Children's books about LGBT, I'm all for it. ×Meegs 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: category:LGBT-themed children's books. That makes it clear that it's not for LGBT children, just about those themes.--Mike Selinker 03:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support that. ×Meegs 10:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category:LGBT-themed children's books as per suggestion.--Marysunshine 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename not least due to faulty capitalization, but prefer Category:Children's books with LGBT themes as (a) keeps "Children's books" at start of name; (b) more explicitly indicates the plurality of possible LGBT themes. Regards, David Kernow 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urban Culture

Not a useful category due to a lack of well-defined criteria for inclusion Pak21 00:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CalJW 18:39, 6 May 2006
Delete per nom. Why is the Metropolitan Opera House not here? No, it won't do. Scranchuse 02:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 15:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category has been renamed to Category:Urban culture by a new user, Independent Journalist. Given that the reason for deletion is due to content rather than naming, I see no reason that this deletion discussion shouldn't equally apply to that. --Pak21 17:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The intent is to include coverage on Wikipedia of modern culture. The notion that a category could be deleted because of a lack of existence of "well-defined" criteria is ridiculous. The contents of the category ARE the criteria. Again, let us remember that the category itself has a relevant page at Urban culture. It has been hereby noted that User:Pak21 plays Warhammer and similar users have added a zillion entries to wikipedia which would suggest that the Wikipedian's tolerance for non-indoor activities is practically nil. Deleting this category is tantamount to a hate crime. Also, I can't fathom why that "Wikipedians who love cats" is a category for inclusion yet "urban culture" is not? Hello. McFly? McFly?? Independent Journalist 17:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Would adding Metropolitan Opera House to the category be appropriate? It is definitely urban, and definitely culture. --Pak21 18:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Wikipedians who love cats" is (or would be, if it actually existed) a category for user pages, for which different criteria apply to that for article-space categories. --Pak21 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Marysunshine 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both versions Category:Urban culture and category:Urban Culture. ReeseM 00:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is easy to fill up, see Category:Urban geography, several music styles closely associated with urban culture (Category:Hip Hop and Category:Punk, etc.). As Independent Journalist says, we have loads of uninteresting categories, I think you should give this one a chance. I forgot the Chicago School, several architecture movements, Futurism which would have never existed if modern cities hadn't, Urbanism and Urban planning, etc., etc., etc. Tazmaniacs 16:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The problem isn't with the category itself – it's with the lack of criteria on which articles should be placed into the category. Do you have a suggestion for that, preferably above and beyond "what's there already" and that specified by urban culture, which isn't much more than a dictdef. Secondly, just because there are some uninteresting categories on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should keep another one! --Pak21 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like diversifying Wikipedia is an important cause and urban culture is certainly relevant. I notice that those that complain the most have themselves contributed riduclous amounts of minuatae surrounding and including the inclusion of single frames of animation from their favorite Transformers epidoses. Remember kids, Wikipedia ain't just for computer enthusiasts and their 2600 fanclubs. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Rightofcenter 18:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We must, as a group, remember that variations in demographics, dialects and other cultures other than one's own can sometimes result in racism and petty battles among elitists regardless if their exists an Internet or not. Absolutely this is a keep. Urban culture is as important as Rural culture. 70.25.28.229 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment: Wikipedia was built upon allowing new and exciting information to be added. This is a dynamic category and should stay put. CelebritySecurity 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Middlesbrough Borough into Category:Middlesbrough

There is no real distinction between these two categories. They are already being mis-used with a number of article having been placed in both categories. -- RHaworth 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Middlesbrough is a unitary authority. Bhoeble 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]