Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William Allen Simpson (talk | contribs) at 01:06, 5 April 2006 (April 5). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Jump to specific days
Old votes:
27th 26th 25th 24th 23rd 22nd 21st 20th
Archive and Indices

Purge the cache to refresh this page

See How to use this page for the official rules of this page, guidelines for Speedy Deletion and Speedy Renaming, and how to do cleanup. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for the policies guiding many renaming decisions.

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category fewer.

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

How to use CfD

Shortcut

Nomination procedure

Twinkle

You may use Twinkle to facilitate CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check "Twinkle" in the "Browsing" section. Use the now-installed "XfD" (Start a deletion discussion) tab while viewing the page you want to nominate.

Twinkle only allows you to nominate a single category or stub template. For bundled nominations including multiple categories, see § MassCFD.

MassCFD

You can use the script User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massCFD to automatically make mass nominations.

Manual nominations

I
Preliminary steps.

Before nominating a category:

In the following special cases:

For further information, see Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

II
Edit the category.

Add one of the following templates at the beginning of the category page (not the talk page) of every category to be discussed. For nominations involving large numbers of categories, help adding these templates can be requested here.

Otherwise, if nominating a single category:
  • For deleting, use {{subst:Cfd}}
  • For merging, use {{subst:Cfm|Other category}}
    • For merging to two categories, use {{subst:Cfm-double|Other category 1|Other category 2}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr|Proposed name}}
  • For splitting, use {{subst:Cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2}}
  • For converting the category into a list, use {{subst:Cfl|Proposed name}}
  • For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:Cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion}} (see Template:Cfd/doc#Optional parameter)
If nominating a group of related categories, use a bundled nomination:
  • For deleting, use {{subst:Cfd|CfD section name}}
  • For merging, use {{subst:Cfm|Other category|CfD section name}}
    • For merging to two categories, use {{subst:Cfm-double|Other category 1|Other category 2|CfD section name}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
  • For splitting, use {{subst:Cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2|CfD section name}}
  • For converting the category into a list, {{subst:Cfl|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
  • For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:Cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion|CfD section name}} (see Template:Cfd/doc#Optional parameter)
  • Include "CfD", "CfM", "CfR", "CfS" or "CfL" in the edit summary, and do not mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
  • To add the template for previous nomination days, use the "full" version of the template by appending "full" to the template name, i.e. {{cfd full}}, {{cfm full}}, {{cfr full}}, {{cfs full}} and {{cfl full}}. Use the |day=, |month= and |year= parameters to make the banner link to the correct CfD page.
  • Consider adding {{subst:cfd notice|Category name|2024 May 22|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator.
  • For details about these templates, see each template's documentation.
III
Create the CFD section.

Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) to copy and paste one of the templates below. When inserting category names into these template's parameters, except the text= parameter, omit the Category: prefix and do not use wikilinks, as the template takes care of this.

If nominating a single category:
  • For deleting, use {{subst:Cfd2|Obsolete category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
  • For merging, use {{subst:Cfm2|Origin category|Destination category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
    • For merging to two categories, use {{subst:Cfm2|Origin category|Destination category 1|target2=Destination category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr2|Current category|Proposed name|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
  • For splitting, use {{subst:Cfs2|Current category|Proposed category 1|Proposed category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed split. ~~~~}}
  • For converting the category into a list, use {{subst:Cfc2|Current category|Proposed article|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
  • For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:Cfd2|Current category|type=other type|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
For a bundled nomination, use one of the standard templates to build the "Cfd section name" for the first nominated category. After saving that, the second and subsequent nominations must be inserted manually, as follows:
==== Cfd section name ====
* 1st category
* 2nd category [Make clear whether you propose deletion, merging or renaming]
* Your reason for nominating the categories, and signature.
  • If a bundled nomination is too long, consider using {{hidden}} to hide some of the nominated categories.
  • In your reason, use links if mentioning articles or categories. To link to a category, use the colon trick by adding a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, e.g. [[:Category:Foo]].
  • Preview before saving to check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.

Stub types

I
Preliminary steps.

In general, a stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category. Before nominating a stub type for deletion, merging or renaming:

  • Read and understand guidance for creating stub types and stub type naming conventions.
  • Review the list of existing stub types—be advised, this list may not be comprehensive.
  • If you wish to:
    • Create a new stub type—follow the procedure for proposing new stub types.
    • Delete, merge or rename a stub category only, without deleting or renaming the associated stub template—follow the instructions above this section.
    • Delete or rename a stub template—continue to section II.
II
Edit the template.

Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the template to be discussed.

  • For deletion, use {{subst:Sfd-t|Section name}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:Sfr-t|Proposed name|Section name}}
  • Please include "SFD" or "SFR" in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
  • Consider notifying the template's creator on their talk page. To find the contributor, check the page history of the stub template.
III
Create the CFD section.

Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) and paste the following text (remember to update the default parameters):

  • For deletion, use {{subst:sfd-t2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:sfr-t2|TemplateOldName|TemplateNewName|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
  • In your rationale, mention how many articles currently use the template to help other editors. When linking to a category in your rationale, always add a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes a category link that can be seen on the page, and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating.
  • Preview before saving to check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.

Notifying interested projects and editors

In addition to the steps listed above, you may choose to invite participation by editors who are likely to be informed about a nominated category. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing. In addition, to help make your messages about the CfD discussion clear, avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations, link to relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the discussion itself.

Notifying related WikiProjects

WikiProjects consist of groups of editors who are interested in a particular subject. If a nominated category is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, consider adding a brief, neutral note on their talk page(s) about the nomination. You may use {{subst:cfd notice|Category name|2024 May 22|CfD section name}} ~~~~ or write a personalized message.

Tagging the nominated category's talk page with a relevant WikiProject's banner will include the category in that WikiProject's Article Alerts if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a nominated category with {{WikiProject Physics}} will add the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

Notifying substantial contributors to the category

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and main contributors of the category that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, check the category's page history or talk page. You may use {{Cfd notice}} to inform the category's creator and all other editors.

Notifying other interested editors

It may be helpful to invite other subject-matter experts by posting a message on the talk page of the most closely related article, such as Protein family for Category:Protein families. You may use {{Cfdnotice}} for this.

Closing procedure

Shortcut

After seven days, someone will close the discussion according to the consensus that formed or, if needed, relist it to allow more discussion. Editors closing discussions must follow the administrator instructions and, except in the case of a "keep" or "no consensus" outcome, implement the result or log it at the Working page to ensure it is implemented.

Redirecting categories

Shortcut
"WP:CAT-R" redirects here. For the guideline on categorizing redirects, see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects.
For an essay on this topic, see WP:Category redirects that should be kept.

In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (i.e. #REDIRECT[[''target'']]), we use a form of "soft redirect" to solve the issue. You can create a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}} to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets.

In particular, category redirects are used at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up category redirects from titles with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics.

A list of redirected categories is available at Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.

Redirecting categories

It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and classification.

However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over again. In these cases, we use a form of "soft" redirection.

Categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (#REDIRECT [[target]]) due to limitations in the MediaWiki software. Instead, just use Template:Categoryredirect. The NekoDaemon (talk · contribs) bot hourly automatically patrols these categories and moves articles out of them and into the redirect targets.

You can see a list of redirected categories in Category:Wikipedia category redirects.

Special notes

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidentally not be listed here.

See also meta-discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases regarding the content of the {{cfd}} template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.

Anonymous users may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in AfD. Votes from anonymous or new users may be discounted if they lack edit history. See Wikipedia:Suffrage and WP:SOCK for details.

Categories relating to stub articles should not be nominated here, but should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use {{cfd-article}} for this.

Speedy renaming and merging

Shortcut

Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested only if they meet a speedy criterion, for example WP:C2D (consistency with main article's name) or WP:C2C (consistency with established category tree names). Please see instructions below.

  1. Determine which speedy criterion applies
  2. Tag category page with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} or {{subst:cfm-speedy|Merge target}}
  3. List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page

Please note that a speedy request must state which of the narrowly defined criteria strictly applies. Hence, any other non-speedy criteria, even "common sense" or "obvious", may be suitable points, but only at a full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion.

Request may take 48 hours to process after listing if there are no objections. This delay allows other users to review the request to ensure that it meets the speedy criteria for speedy renaming or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g., "patent nonsense", "recreation") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}} with no required delay. Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with {{db-empty}}. Renaming under C2E may also be processed instantly (at the discretion of an administrator) as it is a variation on G7.

To oppose a speedy request you must record your objection within 48 hours of the nomination. Do this by inserting immediately under the nomination:

  • Oppose, (the reasons for your objection). ~~~~

You will not be able to do this by editing the page WP:Categories for discussion. Instead, you should edit the section WP:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here or the page WP:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here (WP:CFDS). Be aware that in the course of any discussion, the nomination and its discussion may get moved further down the page purely for organizational convenience – you may need to search WP:CFDS to find the new location. Participate in any ongoing discussion, but unless you withdraw your opposition, a knowledgeable person may eventually bring forward the nomination and discussion to become a regular CFD discussion. At that stage you may add further comments, but your initial opposition will still be considered. However, if after seven days there has been no support for the request, and no response from the nominator, the request may be dropped from further consideration as a speedy.

Contested speedy requests become stale, and can be untagged and delisted after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}. If the nominator wants to revive the process, this may be requested at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.

If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process the Speedy page. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a full CFD discussion.

Speedy criteria

Shortcut

The category-specific criteria for speedy renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes

Shortcut
  • Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
  • Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
  • Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category.

C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices

Shortcut

C2C: Consistency with established category tree names

Shortcut

Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names

  • This should be used only where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
  • This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
  • This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).

C2D: Consistency with main article's name

Shortcut
  • Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous page (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
  • This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is:
    • unambiguous (so it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator); and
    • uncontroversial, either because of longstanding stability at that particular name, or because the page was just moved (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). C2D does not apply if the result would be contrary to guidelines at WP:CATNAME, or there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result, or it is controversial in some other way.
  • This criterion may also be used to rename a set category in the same circumstances, where the set is defined by a renamed topic; e.g. players for a sports team, or places in a district.
  • Before nominating a category to be renamed per WP:C2D, consider whether it makes more sense to move the article instead of the category.

C2E: Author request

Shortcut
  • This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months of creating the category.
  • The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.

C2F: One eponymous page

Shortcut
  • This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article, list, template or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories, where applicable. Nominations should use {{subst:cfm-speedy}} (speedy merger) linking to a suitable parent category, or to another appropriate category (e.g. one that is currently on the article).

Admin instructions

When handling the listings:

  1. Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
  2. With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
  3. Make sure that there is no opposition to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing their opposition.

If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed or merged – follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is to Rename, Merge, or Delete"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.

Applying speedy criteria in full discussions

  • A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
    • The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here, and
    • No objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
  • If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.

Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 01:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 88 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

  • @Smasongarrison: unfortunately the entire 19th-century architecture by country tree is by 21st-century countries and so are the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    gotcha! Move to full? Mason (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smasongarrison: moving it to full will be a brave act. Be ready for opposition, other editors will argue that buildings are currently in Turkey. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ugh, I don't have the bandwidth for that right now. I'm fine with this becoming stale. Mason (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests

  • Oppose, not all articles in the category are about clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to full? Mason (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smasongarrison: fair enough, but I would advocate "religious leaders" rather than "clergy" per the other parent category. Religious leaders is broader than clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be fine with religious leaders. Mason (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do not we have consensus here? Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

  • Oppose, this is a category of princes, not so much of rebellions. Perhaps split. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. Move to full then I guess? NLeeuw (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: I have moved all of the following Categories here pending adequate confirmation of their eligibility under C2C. I made a serious effort to look for that, but was unable to find such confirmation. There is a massive jumbled welter of Categories in this realm, with no prevailing pattern that I can discern. Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now to all by ethnic or national origin nominations. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opposition needs to have a reason. Mason (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing wording sounds more natural and is easier to understand. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to full discussion:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_30#Category:English_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_9#Category:Swedish_politicians_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_27#British_people_by_descent
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_6#Actors_by_ethnicity
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_7#People_from_British_Overseas_Territories_and_Crown_Dependencies_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_8#People_from_Overseas_France_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_9#Caribbean_people_by_descent
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_17#Category:Romanian_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin_and_occupation
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_17#Category:Northern_Mariana_Islands_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_17#Category:East_German_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except in the United States, the "by descent" format seems to be standard everywhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for deletion

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

Discussions

April 5

Category:British sport by locality to Category:Sport in the United Kingdom by locality

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category should use the "in" form like its parent and children. Rename CalJW 18:06, 5 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.

Rugby league stadiums

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

The result of the debate was rename both. Syrthiss 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 subcategories to be renamed in line with other sports venue categories and for consistency with the parent:


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:Iranian Stage actors to Category:Iranian stage actors

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 merge. Syrthiss 13:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia naming conventions. ProveIt (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note this is merge not rename -- ProveIt (talk) 17:48, 5 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:Byzantine sites in Italy

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

The result of the debate was delete - wiki is not a crystal ball. Syrthiss 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


See below. We don't have Byzantine sites in Greece or Byzantine sites in Turkey, do we? There is nothing in the article on Trani which warrants its inclusion in the category. I looked through the hefty "History of Byzantium" which mentions dozens samples of Byzantine architecture in Italy. No Trani here. Delete frivolous and meaningless cat. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:42, 5 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:Romanesque sites of Puglia

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Started by User:Attilios specifically to categorize Trani. Completely out of line with existing categorization schemes. There is nothing outstanding in Trani that warrants its categorization as "a Gothic site". If the author wants the categorization to be consistent, he needs to explain which city is a "Gothic site", "Renaissance site", "Baroque site", "Art Nouveau site", etc, etc. I'm afraid the consistent application of this criterion would plunge Wikipedia into an abyss of pointless and uninformative categorization. Paris, for instance, would have to be included into a dozen cats: it is a "Gothic site", a "Romanesque site", a "pre-Romanesque site", etc. Hence, delete. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • del as per nom. --Irpen 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorization by architecture type, rather than by cultural inroads and foundation as in Byzantine above, is not to be started. Carlossuarez46 20:52, 5 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:Gothic sites of Puglia

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Started by User:Attilios specifically to categorize Trani. Completely out of line with existing categorization schemes. There is nothing outstanding in Trani that warrants its categorization as "a Gothic site". If the author wants the categorization to be consistent, he needs to explain which city is a "Gothic site", "Renaissance site", "Baroque site", "Art Nouveau site", etc, etc. As 90% of cities in Europe may be described as "Gothic sites", the consistent application of such a criterion would plunge Wikipedia into an abyss of pointless and uninformative categorization. Hence, delete. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • del as per nom. --Irpen 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gothic is ambiguous (having to do with Goths? architecturally? foreboding and scary? filled with teenagers with white makeup, piercings, wearing black?) Assuming by context what is intended: categorization by architecture type, rather than by cultural inroads and foundation as in Byzantine above, is not to be started. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 5 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:Benz family

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through Category:Categories for deletion, and apparently this was tagged a long time ago, but never listed here, so I posted it. Looking through it, I'd have to agree, delete. Nobunaga24 15:04, 5 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:Ruler-and-compass constructions

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been cfd not prod... -- ProveIt (talk)

  • Keep unless someone can explain why the person who orphaned it in the same edit put a tag on it to delete it because it had been orphaned. Gene Nygaard 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Okay, that explanation satisfies me. 13:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to; if you could be a bit more explicit, I'll be happy to try to address your concerns. John Reid 19:58, 7 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:Famous bow tie wearers

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill is in a huge number of categories even without this cluttersome trivia. This merits a list in the bow tie article perhaps, but not a category. Hawkestone 13:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete as above. Hawkestone 13:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We've been down this road recently, and the result was to keep it. (Can't find the previous nomination, though.)--Mike Selinker 14:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking of February 16 - Category:Famous Bow tie wearers? CLW 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Seems like six weeks later is too recently to revisit a nomination. Let's wait six months.--Mike Selinker 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion says that an article for deletion shouldn't be relisted immediately if the deletion fails. While that is articles and this is categories I don't see why the criteria should be different and six weeks is definitely not immediate. (And, BTW the result of the previous go around was No Concensus, not Keep). --JeffW 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic criterion. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic criterion. This is an encyclopedia, not a miscellany. Choalbaton 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Just clutter. --Irpen 18:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So what's next? Boxers or briefs? --JeffW 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete. Not needed. Carlossuarez46 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • listify and delete. much better as a list. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a list would not make any difference as this is unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 09:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, criterion is too unstable/subjective. And boxer briefs. - choster 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ListifyMayumashu 05:18, 11 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:United States wines to Category:American wines

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match category:American cuisine. Bhoeble 13:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Isn't there more of a case for renaming category:American cuisine to category:United States cuisine, since this would be more accurate? "America", after all, is more than just the US. CLW 13:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has come up a lot, and each time the conclusion is that "American" is the adjectival form of "United States." Blame us United Statesians for not coming up with a better adjective for ourselves.--Mike Selinker 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename As stated, "American" is the adjectival form of "United States." Choalbaton 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nomination. mattbr30 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, wouldn't "Wines of the United States", be more apropriate. To avoid confusion with someone searching for North American or South American wines? --Barberio 09:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it would not. We have been through that debate more than enough times and it seems to me that the potential for such confusion is purely theoretical. In any case, readers of the English Wikipedia should familiarise themselves with normal English usage. This is not the place to change the English language to suit the needs of Latin Americans or anyone else; we should use English as it is. Bhoeble 11:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Darwinek 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - Nat Krause(Talk!)`


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:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios characters to Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios series and characters

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 merge. Syrthiss 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former catergory is redundant if the latter category also exisits. CLW 08:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I can't tell for sure, but someone may have been in progress of moving entries from one to the other, given that one category has only items beginning with J or later, and the other is mostly A through H.--Mike Selinker 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from closing admin - both cats seem to have population as of time of closing so whatever was happening when Mike made his comment appears to have completed. --Syrthiss 13:58, 13 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:The Salvation Army in Films

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these entries are trivia. If trivia from every book, film, etc... gets a category, then categories become trivial. This subject is already handled quite will at Salvation Army Filmography in which I found out that in Pieces of April someone bought a suit at the Salvation Army. "What links here" can be used to find all the lists of trivia that mention a film. -- Samuel Wantman 05:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ×Meegs 07:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles shouldn't be classified by minor attributes or references. Bhoeble 12:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. David Kernow 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. -Irpen 18:19, 5 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:Lists of movements

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the utility in conflating art movements and political movements just because they both have "movement" in their names. Perhaps this should be split into Lists of arts movements and Lists of political movements but with only three items it hardly seems worth it. JeffW 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best argument I can think of against this category is that until I clicked on the link, I had no idea whether "movements" was referring to artistic groups, political action groups, pieces of music or physical actions such as "hop", "skip" and "jump". If further articles can be found to file in them, then split into separate (and less ambiguously titled) political and artistic categories; otherwise delete, because this doesn't serve any useful purpose as currently constituted. Bearcat 04:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I doubt there will ever be enough of a population to warrant splitting. After deleting, the entries will be split into two different categories of lists (whoever closes this should be careful). -- Samuel Wantman 05:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. --Irpen 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too unfocused. David Kernow 02:39, 6 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:Software engineering disasters to Category:Disasters attributed to software engineering

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

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 14:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less POV title in light of no consensus to delete (see here) David Kernow 03:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nom. David Kernow 03:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not all of the entries match the new title, and I don't think it matches the original intention, or not all of it. It also covers progamming fiascos which didn't cause disasters in the sense of loss of life. 12:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhoeble (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose. While it's true that some software engineering did cause disasters (and some of the articles in the category exemplify that),there are plenty of software engineering projects that were themselves disasters. Ed Yourdon's book Deathmarch names some as does Software Runaways; Lessons learned from Massive Software Project Failures by Robert L. Glass. Atlant (updated 7 April 2006)
  • Oppose move. No need to weaselize. --Irpen 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A distinction between software causing disaster and software failing to perform has been made. Is that "weaselizing"?  Curious, David Kernow 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. There seems to be a trend toward longer and longer category names, which make the list of categories at the bottom of articles hard to read. Category names should be as concise as possible, in my opinion. And, if anything, the incidents in question are attributed to a lack of software engineering. --agr 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the manner in which categories are listed at the bottom of articles needs reconsideration. There seem to be too many instances where clarity, grammar and/or syntax have been sacrificed for the sake of a compressed category name. "Fatally crashed racecar drivers", "American Revolution people" (something from the sixties?), etc, etc... David Kernow 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both seem like reasonable category names to me. I think category names are like newspaper headlines, where rules of syntax are often relaxed. In the pre-computer library card catalog one was more likely to find a subject card titled "American Revolution - people" than "People Associated with the American War of Independence (1775–1783)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldReinhold (talk • contribs)
  • For the sake of those non-native speakers visiting the English Wikipedia, I'd be happier with "X Revolution - people", "X Revolution: People" or the like, i.e. something that doesn't treat a noun phrase as an adjective. But "fatally crashed [noun phrase]"?!  Let's take advantage of the fact Wikipedia doesn't have to use a pre-computer library card catalog approach... I'm all for trying a show/hide listing of categories one-to-a-line at the bottom of a page, akin to TOCs. Thanks for your thoughts, David Kernow 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way we're going, you wouldn't get one to a line. I agree with ArnoldReinhold; succinct category names are better. Gene Nygaard 02:10, 7 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.
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4

Category:New York City geography to Category:Geography of New York City

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 12:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This cat doesn't match its sister cats or Category:Geography of New York. Therefore rename. Scranchuse 23:28, 4 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:Compositions by musical composer

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really an article, not a category. Moved contents to Compositions by musical composer – ProveIt (talk) 22:50, 4 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:University_of_Southern_Mississippi

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 Reverse Merge. - TexasAndroid 12:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. No longer used/needed. – NKirby 22:01, 4 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.

Beer categories

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

The result of the debate was Rename as listed. - TexasAndroid 12:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brewers and breweries to Category:Beer and breweries by region Discussion on Wiki Beer Project: Agreed umbrella change of name for a set of categories

SilkTork 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Yes, yes, please change all of these. I tried this a while back, but not in such a well-done and thorough manner. — BrianSmithson 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I noticed that this area needed looking at a while ago, but actually dealing with it was more hassle than I had time for. Except that the new British cat should probably be called Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom because the UK is a state and "British Isles" is only a physical geography designation. Scranchuse 23:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There doesn't necessarily need to be cats for every country, or every geographical region. Sometimes geographical regions can have more to do with development than political entities, and sometimes it's the other way around. If it's the case with beer inside the UK and Ireland that geography and culture is more relevant than politics, as I would suspect, than I would strongly disagree with that provisio. Blackcap (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support but with the same exception as Scranchuse. Thryduulf 00:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with Scrachuse proviso. And kudos for taking on a badly needed cleanup project. Bearcat 05:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology for Britain is full of problems. Various parts of Britain the British Isles, such as Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey don't come under United Kingdom, yet - as far as beer is concerned - the history and development is related. Breweries such as Guinness (Ireland), Okells (Isle of Man), and Randalls (Guernsey) are considered British, yet if we had a United Kingdom cat we'd have to have a separate one for Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. British Isles covers all these. Indeed, British Isles is the only non-political and wholly inclusive term for the region under discussion. Currently Ireland and Isle of Man are listed under the British breweries cat - if we changed to a United Kingdom cat they'd have to be taken out. SilkTork 07:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, Ireland is most distinctly not part of Britain (though part of it is part of the UK) and it is frankly odd to suggest that it is. Guinness is most distinctly not a British brewery. Sure, it's related, but not the same, just like Portugal is not Spanish, and Denmark is not Swedish. Unfortunately, as Talk:British Isles will make clear, the term "British Isles" will not function like "Iberia" or "Scandinavia" as an umbrella category. "X of Britain and Ireland" or "British and Irish X" will do (cf the Lions rugby team). (I don't think I'm being too touchy here, but it continually amazes me that intelligent educated British people don't seem to realise that Ireland is a different country.) BrendanH 11:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're correct in saying that terminology for Britain is full of problems, and demonstrate that well by then saying 'Various parts of Britain, such as Ireland...' Ireland is not part of Britain, though it is part of the British Isles. Also, who exactly considers the Guinness brewery to be British?! I'd also question why there's a category of British/British Isles and also a Scottish category (part of the UK of GB&NI), when a separate country (Ireland) apparently doesn't merit one? Bastun 11:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Correction made. As for Guinness being considered British, that is all part of the history of and general confusion over these islands and the various terms used to descibe them and the people and political & administrative units that occupy them. Guinness for most of the brewery's history has been under British occupation - its history and development is very much a part of the British Isles as a whole. I wish to avoid any political bias and any potential awkwardness, and have a beer category that encapsules the related and entwined beer and brewing traditions of the whole of the British Isles, which would include the Republic of Ireland in all its various forms over the years. I am aware of the nationalist implications of titles, and do not wish to diminish or hide away any culture, be it Welsh, Manx, Cornish, Scottish, Anglo-Saxon, or Irish in an umbrella term. I have offered up British Isles as the most reasonable solution for the circumstances, as it is a recognised geographic term for the region under discussion and does not carry any political or administrative baggage. As it stands at the moment, Guinness is in Category:Irish breweries which is in Category:British breweries. My proposal is more accurate, fair and non-political than the current situation. SilkTork 14:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the considered response. Like I said above, British Isles is seen as problematic, and British and Irish is recommended as an alternative. Does that lead to a situation with Category:Beer and breweries in Britain and Ireland, containing Category:Beer and breweries in Britain and Category:Beer and breweries in Ireland, where Category:Beer and breweries in Britain contains in turn Category:Beer and breweries in England etc, like so:
                    Cat:Britain & Ireland
                               /\
                              /  \
                   Cat:Britain    Cat:Ireland
                        /\
                       /  \
            Cat:England    Cat:Scotland etc.
I could live with that, if I'm correct in thinking that multiple nesting of categories isn't really a problem, and that proliferation of categories isn't a problem. I may well be wrong on those counts, as I'm not sure I understand the system in all its subtlety.BrendanH 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not on at all. The Britain and Ireland categories are nothing by a pain. The state is the UK and the UK should be the top category as it is for Category:Companies of the United Kingdom and its subcategories. Osomec 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Britain is not a formal term and does not cover the Crown Dependencies. British Isles covers the entire area we are talking about quite neatly and without any political bias. As part of the proposal above it should be noted that I have already included Scotland and England which are to be subcats of the British Isles. I hadn't got around to dealing with the Republic of Ireland (now have) nor Wales, Isle of Man, and all the various states which are to be subcats of the USA. Though all those are to be nominated as well as part of the whole uniform approach. I am wondering if people are objecting because they thought that there were to be no subcats? I am so close to this I can see it clearly and forget that other people are not looking through my eyes. We have:

Beer and breweries by region

then:

Beer and breweries in Europe

then:

Beer and breweries in the British Isles

then:

Beer and breweries in the Republic of Ireland

then (if people wish):

Beer and breweries in Leinster

then (if people want to narrow in even more):

Beer and breweries in County Dublin.

I hope this is clear, and will settle people's minds. SilkTork 15:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete suggestion: (1) Category:Beer and breweries in Britain with subcategories including in England, in Scotland and the various dependencies; (2) Category:Beer and breweries in Ireland, and if you feel it is necessary, (3) overarching Category:B&B in Britain and Ireland with 1 and 2 as sub-cats. Even if the various small islands are not part of "Britain", it is only a small fudge to include them there, and it is less problematic than using the British Isles term, which has a history of being objected to. (And it puts Cat:B&B in Ireland as a direct sub-category of Cat:B&B in Europe, as it should be.) BrendanH 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just browsed through Wiki to see how other topics in the British Isles are named and I see that United Kingdom is by far the most common, followed by British. There is no instance, as far as I saw, of British Isles being used. I suppose I preferred British Isles because it is a regional term rather than political, and therefore (I thought) should avoid conflict or bias. United Kingdom, being - for me - a term of political and military dominance of England over Wales and Scotland and Ireland (part of currently, all of at times in the past), I thought that would be the naming convention that most nationalists would object to. As the Wiki naming convention is for United Kingdom, and as people seem to prefer prefer that term, then I will put up no further arguments here. I will instead take the discussion of the naming convention of the British Isles to any noticeboards or projects related to matters of the Isles. SilkTork 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strongly Object no one has even responded to my criticisms on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. This change is badly thought out. The new categories are not sensibly parented: Category:Scottish beer is the current catch-all category for general beer styles, culture etc, parented by Category:Beer and Category:Scotland and the breweries is a subcat, parented by this and companies. "Beer and breweries" is a hybrid category that will look stupid when you browse the category system through companies to more and more subdivisions you will suddenly get to a beer. This is very wrong. Justinc 09:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel no one has responded fully. I've just looked back at your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. It's not immediately clear that you are objecting, which may be why there hasn't been a specific response. You made a comment that you felt that Scottish beer was in some way different to other beer in Britain and I did address that issue - though it doesn't actually have any relevance to the current discussion. Your comment "We already have this. Category:Scottish beer is the general category with articles about local styles and history, containing Category:Scottish breweries. Someone broke America, but thats easy to fix." is, as I now understand it, the start of an argument for a different method of categorising beer and breweries. Another comment I have found is: "The advantage of separating them is for parenting on the category system. Breweries are companies and therefore appear under the Companies in Germany etc categories. Beer and breweries is strangely parented from this point of view. One solution would be to put the beers in categories under the brewery (so you have Category Budweiser containing Bud Light or whatever)." And the final relevant comment would be: "Ok I have looked through the category system again, and aparrt from some misclassifications I cant see the problem. Everything is divided into Category:German beer, which covers the regional styles, culture and so on (and can be subclassified for smaller regional divisions), and then that contains a breweries category. As long as people dont classify breweries into the beer category (which they tend to, but its easily fixed) this works well, as the first thing you see is the overview of the regional styles and so on. Some of this is a mess: American beer is a subset of American breweries rather than the other way round, so no wonder people are confused. Also some articles on individual beers which shouldnt have them have proliferated - these need merging back into the breweries. Breweries are verifable companies which can have references. Very few beers are. I spent a long time removing stuff from Category:Brands of beer and much of the stuff there is actually beers that are culturally or historically notable outside the context of the brewery that made them." I have agreed with you that having beer articles floating around unattached to their breweries is unhelpful. We are in accord on that - and this categorising proposal would assist in encouraging people to put beers into breweries, while a category named Beer in *Country* might in fact encourage people to simply talk about their favourite beer from that particular country. I see no immediate advantage in having two different categories for holding articles which are essentially dealing with the same thing: beer produced by a brewery. The "beer" part of the category name would allow general articles on beer in that particular region to be grouped together with articles on the breweries which produce those beers. Individual breweries can still be cat. tagged under Companies or any other business or other cat. which editors might feel relevant. SilkTork 10:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Justinc: it just seems odd to destroy a whole load of "Beer" and "Breweries" categories for no good reason - they both belong to different category hierarchies (for example the "breweries" categories belong to "companies" supercategories - are we to lose that connection?). All you need to do instead for those places with extant separate beer and breweries categories is create the proposed new categories as new parent cats, without destroying the existing ones. I would also like to Support Scrachuse proviso. --Mais oui! 11:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sometimes a beer and a brewery are easily separated and sometimes not, so this approach will produce more consistency. Perhaps some specialised subcategories could be created at the next level down, but this approach is a good way to bring things together. These categories should all be in the national companies categories and there is no problem with that. Bhoeble 12:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changed to Weak Support Proposed categories seem overly complicated and in some cases, illogical. Is there really a need for "Super-categories" at continental level? With further sub-division, such as Category:Beer and breweries in the British Isles containing "English" and "Scottish" sub-categories? Bastun 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (Additional comment: I still maintain that the 'super-categories', at least at continental level aren't necessary. I don't see the relevance of a category containing beers/breweries from, say, Turkey and Japan, for instance. But based on Osomenc's comment and provided United Kingdom is used rather than British, the main thrust of the proposal seems fine to me. Changed by Bastun 09:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
    • I agree with you on the continent categories, but voting oppose here won't remove them, and will just help to preserve all the existing inconsistencies. If you support the main thrust of the proposal (and you haven't said you don't) could you please consider voting support and then coming back with nominations for any specific categories you have issues with. If everyone who has problems with a few specifics votes "oppose all" none of this mess will get fixed. Osomec 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with ammendment to UK as outlined in my comments here. This whole proposal needs sorting.
                       Cat:Breweries
                            /\
                           /  \
                      Cat:UK  Cat:RoI
                        /\
                       /  \
            Cat:England    Cat:Scotland etc.

I see a more logical proposal as I have pictured in the diagram above, thus creating the need for the category Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom, and sub-cats off it if necessary. Adding a category for the British Isles (or for the two main islands "Britain and Ireland) is just another unecessary step to have to go through. --Mal 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I read that as a support vote with use of United Kingdom for the British category, so heading it up with oppose seems misleading. Osomec 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have adjusted my vote on the basis of your comment on my talk page. Cheers. --Mal 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all with use of "United Kingdom" as discussed. Osomec 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These often contain much the same things. The breweries categories are company categories so the conventions for company categories apply. Carina22 00:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use United Kingdom rather than British. Carina22 00:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with amendment to "United Kingdom" Athenaeum 13:03, 6 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:Preachers

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and redundant category. Only entry was an article on a bishop (Leontine T. Kelly), for which it was superfluous (all bishops do or have done some preaching); no explanation for how this category is to be distinguished from the many other categories relating to christian ministry. --BrownHairedGirl 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not my subject - but I just popped four pages in the cat without any problem - and given the long list of preachers and evangelists this could become a very strong and useful category. I'm not sure the difference between an evangelist and a preacher - but as there doesn't appear to a cat for evangelist, this cat should allow for groupings of articles related to both. SilkTork 17:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again - I don't know this subject, but it would appear that those you list would be be usefully tagged in this category. It may be the case, as Lbbzman suggests, that this cat could be further divided into more specific areas of preaching. There are already examples on wikipedia of people creating lists of preachers - such as this one; and the title of the cat does suggest that the criteria is those who preach rather than those who think. Though, no doubt, there are many who do both. SilkTork 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CategoryRedirect if appropriate. I'd advocate redirecting to Category:Christian ministers if appropriate. That is, only if the term "preacher" is a Christian-only term, which I'm not sure of. If "preacher" can also refer to a non-Christian worship leader, then my vote would be to keep, and have this category become a parent to Christian ministers as well as the equivalent in other religions. Lbbzman 12:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful category. Rjensen 16:26, 7 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:Piccadilly Radio DJ's to Category:Piccadilly Radio DJs

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 13:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation. An apostrophe indicates a possessive (the DJ's cat was ill). A plural requires no apostrophe (Both of the DJs were nominated for an award) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy rename 62.31.55.223 23:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as above. David Kernow 02:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. As the creator of the category it was simply a matter of not paying attention when I started it. Pally01 07:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (However, disagree with fixing the capitalization of Radio as it forms part of the company's title. Pally01 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy rename, and while we're at it, fix the capitalization of radio. - EurekaLott 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, my mistake. Never mind! - EurekaLott 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename and keep the capital as it's the name of the station, see Piccadilly Radio. mattbr30 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, am I allowed to vote delete? It doesn't seem to me to be a very encyclopedic category. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:48, 6 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:Cult books

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category; empty for over a month. MakeRocketGoNow 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same comment could be made about the other cult categories. The objective criteria is books which are significantly adored by people are included while books which are not significantly adored by people are excluded. The Bible is a cult book because it is adored. Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives by V. I. Arnold is not a cult book because it is not adored. SilkTork 23:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...although I wouldn't consider the Bible to be a "cult book". Perhaps this category is too tricky to be viable... Regards, David Kernow 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since at least the 1940s, the approach of orthodox, conservative or fundamentalist Christians was to apply the meaning of cult such that it included those religious groups who used (possibly exclusively) non-standard translations of the Bible." I should think that the Bible is the basis for more cults than any other book, albeit it with non-standard translations, interpretations or uses. This cat could be the basis for a number of articles on the nature of such religious cults influenced by the Bible, as well as more ephemeral cult books. Christianity itself started out as a cult offshoot of the Bible. SilkTork 07:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Be interesting to see how this develops. Could become a valuable research tool. SilkTork 23:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation, if and when someone actually wants to put some things into the category. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just popped a few books in there to give people some idea of what to do. SilkTork 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought I understood what this was supposed to be about until I saw Recovery from Cults (book) in the category. In what way is this supposed to be similar to Dune (novel)? Yes, it has "cult" in the title, but it's a different sense of the word. (i.e. a controlling and destructive religious or pseudo-religious group, as opposed to an intensely devoted and quirky associated fandom.) If the category can't be given a clear definition, I'll vote delete. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are only eight books listed, and none seem to fit the definition of cult status.
  • Delete. There's no definition of what makes them cult books. – LGagnon 13:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there being no response to my comment above, this category is much too vaguely defined to be useful. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 11 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:Israel Defense Forces guided missiles

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the same as Category:Guided missiles of Israel, seing as how the IDF is Israel's only military. – Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 19:09, 4 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:Science fiction fans

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

The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very difficult to verify, thus difficult to manage, and unencycopedic. The word "fan" is so dubious it's just barely a designation - it could include actors, presidents, serial killers and kids if they just like science fiction. Such cateogories become populated with so many tangentially related ppl that the categories become useless, and the articles get cluttered with categories. But based on new criteria set by Robert A. West, I would support a name change to something along the lines of Category:Science fiction fandom people under Category:Science fiction fandom. --Esprit15d 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete. No context, no explanation that could be verified, and most of the articles do not mention science fiction. Ideally we'd have something similar to List of notable Star Trek fans, but we do not need the category in its absence. ×Meegs 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful if criteria can be discerned. JonMoore 22:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't classify by hobby. The info will always be incomplete and often dubious. It wouldn't be very important even if all of it could be guaranteed to be complete and accurate. Scranchuse 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 12:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too broad. I like the Star Trek one, but not this.--Mike Selinker 16:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Most of these are accurate, and almost all of those I sampled mentioned either fandom or fanzines. I don't see why it's hard to verify; many of the people on the list have biographies or autobiographies; Worldcon publishes membership lists; and fanzine authorship can be verified from the fanzine. Septentrionalis 05:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In some cases, fannishness is the claim to notability. It is silly to deprive an article of its only non-trivial cat. (For sources for some of these, see also Sam Moskowitz's The Immortal Storm.) Septentrionalis 14:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Where else would we categorize people whose principle claim to notability is organizing conventions, running fanzines, etc? Star Trek fandom is a distinct entity from SF fandom – there is crossover, but many people who organize, say, Worldcon, despise Trek. Obviously, categorization should be based on verifiable statements in the bio itself. Where bios do not meet this, they should be fixed or decatted. I have attempted criteria in Category talk:Science fiction fans#Criteria for inclusion. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but restrict application to those notable as SF fans. Alai 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SF fandom dates back to the 1930s as a popular-cultural institution which significantly influenced and supported the successes and advancements within the genre. Members of SF fandom are properly called "Science fiction fans". The identities and roles of fans across times are very EASY to verify from a number of books and websites devoted to fan history. "Notability", on the other hand, is a POV thing by Wikipedia policy. Biographies of listed fans should be clear enough as to their places in and contributions to the institutions and evolution of Science fiction as a whole. Objections appear to be coming from people who are not familiar with SF fandom or its history; as is too often the case with Wikipedia, decision-making is often in the hands of people who spend too much time nosing around for things to criticize in areas with which they have little or no knowledge. 12.73.196.165 01:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. By proposing this on CfD, Esprit15d stimulated me to write a set of suggested criteria, and we may be able to keep the category useful by not using it for everyone who likes the genre. All to the good.Robert A.West (Talk) 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy you have worked up some criteria - though the Category header seemed plain enough to me - and believe you are showing good faith in so doing. I have a harder time seeing that in a proposal to delete the Category for reasons which are themselves vague and pejoratively so, including an accusation of it being "unencylopedic", along with some of the followup agreement posts. They seem to be written by people with no sense of the reality of the first American, subsequently Amer-Euro-Asian (not sure about Africa), human subculture which is Science fiction fandom and, therefore, of the importance of its populace, Science fiction fans. Putting the Cat up for wholesale deletion rather than proposing criteria, or a clearer header, or ongoing monitoring - not sure that Roger Ebert or Janis Ian belong here, e.g.) is, if not a matter of bad faith, then certainly it is a matter of poor judgment, and it would not be the first Cat to disappear for want of common sense among those who pass by and vote when a deletion is proposed. And, I have been around this site long enough to *assume* nothing. 12.73.195.48 03:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually am a science fiction fan, and write fan fic for some fandoms. Which is unrelated to my nomination. I've expanded my nomination rationale to further explain why I nominated it for deletion (or at least renaming). The criteria added to the page is a step in the right direction.--Esprit15d 12:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith accepted. However, I'd observe that putting a Cat up for Deletion wasn't/isn't necessary if criteria for inclusion/exclusion are more to the point. Those can just be added by any interested Wikipedian, and enforced by periodic review of the contents, which is how Wikipedia works anyway. There's no way under the Wiki system to prevent "abuse" of Cats, or articles or lists or anything else, except by periodic policing. 12.73.194.122 03:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Spasage 12:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Would support a category for fanzine writers and editors. 128.36.90.72 14:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bad idea. "Fanzine writers and editors" were not the only people in fandom making it work. This is like confining, say, "Americans" to just newspaper editors and reporters.
Comment again, "Notability" is not a Wikipedian standard; it is POV, relative, in the eye of the beholder. The best approach is to define a broad range of specific and concrete (measurable) criteria for inclusion, based on the nature of what SF Fandom was and is all about. 12.73.194.122 03:05, 12 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:Wikipedians who feel good today

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 13:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes too much, meaning it can't (or likely won't) be subst'd, adding to the server load. Also currently unpopulated. Esprit15d 18:22, 4 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:Hoboken, New Jersey Mayors to Category:Mayors of Hoboken, New Jersey

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mayors of X formulation is used elsewhere in Category:Leaders of cities in the United States, and the existing form is miscapitalized. choster 17:54, 4 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:Space flight control room positions

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

The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton category. Alai 17:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article in the cat is dependent on the cat, and is a new article. I'm assuming that this cat will grow as the article does name several other positions. Give it time. Build it and they will come. SilkTork 17:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what sense "dependent"? It'll be perfectly happy in the parent, Category:Spaceflight. I'm assuming that once there actually exists more than one article to put in it, this category might make some sense, and can easily be created, but as it stands, it's worse than useless. Delete. Alai 17:32, 7 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:Subdivisions by country to Category:Political divisions by country

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 consensous not clear enough. - TexasAndroid 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: discussion may be continued on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is being changed to what is not clear. I'm sorry, but with this complex a set of changes, they really need to be spelled/listed out. Some of these were overlapped by the debates below that were definitely No Consensous. I will encourage the submitter to resubmit as one unbrella debate, not three, and this time listing out exactly what he wants changed. There really is no rush on this. It can easily wait another 7 days. - TexasAndroid 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "subdivision (land)" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is Administrative division or Political division. --William Allen Simpson 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Umbrella – Please make this an umbrella category rename of the subcategories. I'd list all 103 subcategories, but would prefer not to be lynched. Suffice it to say that they all need renaming.
  • Support as nominator --William Allen Simpson
  • Prefer Administrative divisions. In much more common use than "political divisions" (per Google search), by more authoritative sources (Bartleby, the CIA and Guiness Book), and used more often in the context in which we are using it here, geographical sub-regions of a sovereign state. "Subdivision" is the incorrect term entirely.--Esprit15d 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment statistical regions are not administrative regions. but that is what is sometimes is included in the cats. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Only if done consistently. This is only possible if the more neutral term "Administrative Division" is used. As noted below, creating Political Divisions of France doesn't make sense as it is a political unit. The term Administrative Divisions may seem counterintuitive for more federalised countries as Russia, the US and Germany, but it is much more neutral and much easier applied consistently. The Minister of War (Peace) 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree about France. But still think that the overall category be "Political divisions", and using the correct term for federalized countries (such as the US below) makes sense. There's no known reason that every subcategory needs to have the same identical leading words. --William Allen Simpson 01:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, just discovered Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China, that escaped the out of process renaming to "subdivisions" because it was never added into the old heirarchy. --William Allen Simpson 02:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry about this, but if you really are proposing an umbrella name change then you really do have to go and tag all 103 categories and do this properly, giving people due notice. No, you will not get "lynched" - you may well lose the argument but no corporal nor capital punishment will ensue. --Mais oui! 11:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many pardons, I was actually thinking of the tremendous visual load on the reviewers here. But since this very day got Beer categories later in the day, I'll work on posting all 103 entries here. It will take ten to twelve hours, so please be patient. --William Allen Simpson 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that you need to list all the categories here by name (please don't), just tag all the categories so they have notice. --JeffW 01:12, 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.

Subdivisions to Administrative divisions

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

The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: discussion may be continued on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Administrative divisions are the next level of division under Political division. In short, the previously existing, technically accurate, naming scheme was replaced by inaccurate naming.

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.

Subdivisions to Political divisions

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

The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: discussion may be continued on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "subdivision (land)" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is Administrative division or Political division.

Conditional support. See above The Minister of War (Peace) 21:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "Administrative Divisions". Striking earlier support; the original nomination for rename mentioned that the term should be "Administrative Divisions" or "Political Divisions, but the idea now seems to be to use different terms, which is a bad idea. The technical accuracy argument is only valid for the US, but it will be a horribly subjective affair applying this to other countries (does The Netherlands have Administrative or Political divisions?). Let's pick one term, and stick with it. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain although at present I'd prefer "Administrative divisions" to "Political divisions". David Kernow 18:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "Administrative divisions", "Second-level administrative divisions", "Third-level administrative divisions", etc., and note that the US Geonames folks use this as well (for whatever that's worth). Carlossuarez46 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "Administrative divisions" Mayumashu 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – my preference is technical accuracy over convenience, these have been identified as properly named, due to the independence of the next level divisions. --William Allen Simpson 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose would split "subdivisions of XY country" - categories into two cats. please bring this to the project page first.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms first. - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now, need to define terms first. I believe that some changes are in order, especially in regards to how we are defining the terms we are using. It is important that we come to a consensus on the usage of terms such as "subdivisions", "administrative divisions".. etc. Though it may seem like nitpicking, these terms, as well as how they relate to nations or states is important. I strongly suggest discussing these issues at WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming#Umbrella terms and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) before any final decesion is made here. -Loren 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The terminology is certainly important. But the discussion is already here, why put it there? I have posted messages on those pages to invite people to discuss it here instead. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Sounds good. My main concern at the moment is the relation of subdivisions/administrative divisions to the state/country they're being listed as a part of. While this isn't a problem with most regions it does pose a significant challenge in regions where more then one state with the same name exists (i.e. North and South Korea, the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan), the Republic of Congo and the Dem. Republic of Congo... etc). Do we crosslist subcategories from each of the states under a single geographic region? Or do we list administrative regions solely under categories for each state (affairs of state being restricted to the state they relate to, my personal POV)? I'm sure there are other issues in terms of wording that other people could bring up for discussion. -Loren 08:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment terminology discussion should not go to an obscure CfD page. terminology also applies to to articles. The best thing IMO is to improve the umbrella term articles (Administrative division, Political division, Country subdivision, Subnational entity) or to discuss the matter on the related project page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional oppose as per Loren et al.; spurious. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo. This should deal with the problem of what is an admin vs a a political division, so we do not need to make a judgment. Referring to a Canadian province and a US or Australian state as an Administrative division somehow seems wrong, while counties, municipalities, regions, etc, are clearly "administrative" and not political. "Subdivision" just sounds wrong". Luigizanasi 05:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment if it just sounds wrong, then wait a while and you get used to it ;-). Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo is quite long and may become longer if one implements a subcat with historic divisions only. And then replace Foo by Democratic Republic of the Congo. Furthermore this would not cover areas just set up for statistical purpose. (The official Regions of Brazil). I made a stub about Country subdivisions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment I don't believe that Wikipedia should be in the business of inventing new meanings for words. A "subdivision" means that something that was divided is divided again. In my Canadian geographical context, subdivision can mean to things: either a suburban neighbourhood where a piece of farmland was subdivided into individual plots, or in the context of Statistics Canada where a Census division is a, well, division of a province into counties or similar areas, and a Census subdivision is some form of municipality, Indian Reserve or unorganized territory. Using "subdivision" for Canadian provinces completely violates the principle of least astonishment. When I first saw provinces or counties referred to as subdivisions, I must say I was astonished at a novel use of the word. Dictionaries did confirm that my astonishment was justified. Political or administrative divisions (your pick or both, I'm not particularly hung up on either), on the other hand, are clear terms for what is meant here. Let us not forget that Wikipedia is not for the convenience of editors, but for the public using it, and misusing the term subdivision will only confuse potential readers. Luigizanasi 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment agree, the "sub" is kind of strange. But this would better go to linguists first, since language not allways is 100% logical. I will add a notion about the non-logic into Country subdivision. Please help to improve the article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment It's not about logic, it's about usage and the meaning of words in the English language, and . "Subdivision" on its own in this context simply does not mean what you intend it to mean. "Administrative division" and "political division" do, as do "political subdivision" or "administrative subdivision" for that matter. But "subdivision of Foo" on its own does not, it is just confusing to an English-speaking user and a misuse of the word. Check with any dictionary. Luigizanasi 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • what do I intend? Do I intend to mean administrative divisions and political divisions only? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Agree with Luigizanasi. Yesterday, Conradi just moved and renamed dozens of pages to conform to his newly made-up term "Country subdivisions", that he found in one ISO document. Heck, he renamed his own {{subnational entity}}, that he's been sticking onto everything. The world is not "organized" and "logical". This is an encyclopedia! It should document reality, in the accepted and established political science terminology, not try to force the entire world into a mold. --William Allen Simpson 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did found the term actually in three ISO documents. How is the term newly made up if it exists in three ISO documents? Why is it my term? You can also check the history of all the Subdivisions of XY articles and categories - you may find some hints that the term was used for example in 2004-09-19 when Category:Subdivisions_of_Finland was created. Can you tell me how many dozens of pages I moved and renamed in your opinion? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Near as I can tell, ISO 3166 uses Country subdivision, not "Subdivision" on its own. If we are to use the awkward ISO terminology, the it should be Category:Country subdivisions of Foo. "Sudivision" on its own & by itself does not convey the meaning of administrative/political divisions/subdivisions / sub-national entities. When I see "Subdivisions of Foo", I take it to mean minor suburban neighbourhouds in Foo. Luigizanasi 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment I suggest to read the title of ISO 3166 again. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • comment. I suggest you read it again, more carefully this time. You might want to ponder why the title is Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions, and not Codes for the representation of names of countries and subdivisions, and why the subtitle of the relevant section is Part 2: Country subdivision code and not simply Part 2: Subdivision code. It might help to look up adjective, possessive pronoun, possessive adjective and determinative possessive pronouns. Sorry, but "subdivision" on its own without a qualifying attributive adjective or noun simply does not mean the same thing as political/administrative division/subdivision, and its use in that way will only confuse people. Luigizanasi 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • William's statement Heck, he renamed his own {{subnational entity}}, that he's been sticking onto everything. - is wrong in at least two aspects, maybe three. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:01, 11 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:User volleyball

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prejedice against creating the more properly named named Category:Wikipedians who play volleyball or similar. But if the new name is created, it will need to be populated or it will likely end up right back here. - TexasAndroid 19:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Wikipedia specific category for user pages Pak21 16:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Empty and undesirable. Bhoeble 16:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query how is this different from Category:User instruments and subcategories, and numerous other special-interest User categories? Powers 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a subcat of Category:Volleyball, an article-space category. This can obviously be fixed without a delete though; if anyone does that, they might like to fix up Template:User Volleyball Player as well, which was including lots of user pages in Category:Volleyball until earlier today. This is just trying to fix the mess that was created from all that. Cheers --Pak21 16:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Possibly empty due to Wikipedians not yet finding it. I intended this to help volleyball players

find each other for any possible questions for about the history or rules of the sport. I do have to reword the category however, as I forget to put "Wikipedians that are" in the category assignment. --Masssiveego 22:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If kept, then, rename to "Wikipedians who play volleyball". David Kernow 02:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If somebody's going to fix this category up so it's populated and in the right place, by all means keep it. If they're not, let's get it out of the way. --Pak21 10:14, 5 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:Pakistani hill stations

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is empty and redundant to the populated and probably better named Category:Hill Stations of Pakistan. Thryduulf 15:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Powers 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nominator. Bhoeble 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, although is "Hill Stations" a proper noun? David Kernow 02:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is at Hill station and starts "A hill station or Hill Station...", it consistently uses a lowercase 's', including "Hill stations in Pakistan". I have no opinion on it either way, I just spotted the duplication when looking at Category:Pakistan. Thryduulf 12:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each maybe called "[Placename] Hill Station" or the like, but as a group I think they'd be referred to as "Pakistani hill stations" or "Hill stations of Pakistan". Either of these two names seems fine to me. Regards, David Kernow 02:01, 6 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:Star Trek fans

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

The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are two tangentially related things that isn't encyclopedic and is very difficult to manage since it's difficult to verify. Esprit15d 14:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete. The article List of notable Star Trek fans is sufficient, I think. Powers 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category and the equally trivial Category:Science fiction fans. - EurekaLott 17:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List, with its explanations, is far superior. Note: Science fiction fans has been nominated above. ×Meegs 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mike Selinker's proposal below to rename is fine with me too. ×Meegs 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the category's creator. I created this category initially to house people such as Gabriel Koerner and Bjo Trimble who are defined by their Star Trek fandom. Others have been added who are conjectural. I would advocate their removal. JonMoore 20:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever happens, this category should be cleaned out. Tom Hanks and Eddie Murphy make no sense here.--Mike Selinker 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename is fine as per Mike's proposal. Really, if we got rid of this category and the science fiction fans one, there would be some notable Trekkies would not be in any category but their year of birth... JonMoore 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Trekkies. The only reason I propose this is that I don't want to have parallel categories for M*A*S*H fans and the like, but this particular group of fans is eminently notable and deserves its own category.--Mike Selinker 14:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list is fine, we don't need a cat. Carlossuarez46 20:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per Mike's proposal. We need to have some category to put people who's only claim to fame is Trekkiedom. --JeffW 16:38, 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:Historical empires of India to Category:Empires and kingdoms of India

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 Merge. - TexasAndroid 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories ordered into a hierarchical structure and one is redundant. – Domino theory 11:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Historical empires into Empires and kingdoms. A rename isn't going to work because the latter already exists. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom. Bhoeble 16:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. David Kernow 02:05, 5 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:Kingdoms to Category:Monarchies

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms is empty and already redundant compared with the non trivial dichotomy of Monarchy/Monarchies. – Domino theory 10:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Even the Kingdom article is a disambiguation page pointing to Monarchy. No need for a category similarly named. Powers 13:05, 4 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.

merge Category:Fictional plants with Category:Fictional plant species

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 reverse merge. - TexasAndroid 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the two categories are about the same thing --Melaen 10:23, 4 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:U.S. State legislatures to Category:State legislatures of the United States

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 13:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation and form to match parent cat. Vegaswikian 06:00, 4 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:Units of the U.S. Army National Guard to Category:United States Army National Guard units

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation and form to match parent cat. Vegaswikian 05:53, 4 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:Aubergine

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Syrthiss 15:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense category entry DVD+ R/W 04:37, 4 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:Soldiers of the United States

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 Merge. - TexasAndroid 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant, see Category:Members of the United States armed forces – ProveIt (talk) 04:28, 4 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:Pennsylvania National Guard

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not very useful ... ProveIt (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can see this becoming 50 categories with one, or two at best, articles each. There is already a National Guard category with some subcategories that for now seem adequate.--Nobunaga24 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nobunaga24. Also alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Powers 13:05, 4 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:Separate Battalions of the United States Army to Category:Battalions of the United States Army

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 13:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Makes category a bit more inclusive; calling it "Separate Battalions" leaves out some units, such as the different Ranger battalions, which are not separate battalions, but worthy of articles in their own right. Currently they are categorized under Category:United States Army units which is a very general classification covering everything from a 5 man fire team to an army group Nobunaga24 02:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - why not simply create the Battalions category and make Separate Battalions a subcategory? - choster 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if the phrase "Separate Battalion" is even in army usage. I've never heard it, and I was in a few battalions that didn't belong to a higher regiment. I know separate brigade is used. Separate would indicate, I believe, the lack of a higher HQ that the unit type would typically belong too - brigades fall under divisions, but separate brigades do not fall under divisions. A lot of these battalions have a brigade or brigade-sized higher HQ, whether it's a DISCOM, or Support Group, etc. --Nobunaga24 04:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an additional note - the phrase "separate battalion", when searched on .mil websites, produces 430 hits, and on .army.mil 313 hits, and almost all of these, from what I have looked at, refer to historical names of units, i.e. "107th Separate Battalion, Coast Artillery". I think the designation is no longer used. --Nobunaga24 04:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename so long as designation "Separate Batallion" no longer in use. David Kernow 02:09, 5 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:Infantry divisions of the United States to Category:Infantry divisions of the United States Army

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 13:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - More specific category name, brings in line with other unit naming conventions Nobunaga24 02:32, 4 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:Strike aircraft

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emty category. Ingoolemo talk 02:28, 4 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:Armored divisions of the United States to Category:Armored divisions of the United States Army

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 13:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - More specific category name, brings in line with other unit naming conventions Nobunaga24 02:27, 4 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:US Army Lineage and Honors

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no criteria/description given what what constitutes this category. What was in this category was three army units, but I couldn't ascertain why those units out of hundreds were in the category, so I removed them. Nobunaga24 02:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, with the caveat that we probably should have left the articles in the category until the result of the CfD discussion is known. Powers 13:05, 4 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:Anti Iraq war people

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

The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists based on political opinion (not affiliation) are hopelessly vague. Are these people actively against the war or just expressed disapproval of the war? It can't be the latter as that would be hopelessly large and useless. Where should the line be drawn? Fundamentally, it goes against the notion of an encyclopedia, which is to explain people's nuances, rather than categorize them like insects. --Mmx1 01:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but there isn't really a 'pro-war movement' or 'pro-war activists' in the same sense that there is an anti-war movement, describing itself as such. Most people who are pro-war do not define their politics as such, see themselves as part of a unified movement, or spend the majority of their political energy on a single issue. Kalkin 22:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per Schuminweb. --JeffW 16:47, 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:Issue in the Culture Wars

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strict count is 4 - Delete, 7 - rename, 2 - Keep as-is. - TexasAndroid 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopelessly POV category, and even if we could agree on what constitutes a "Culture War Issue", I don't see the usefulness of the category, either. Powers 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Hawkestone 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to American "Culture War" issues United States Culture War issues (per Thryduulf). While I do foresee some NPOV issues, I believe some reasonable criteria could be applied to what belongs here. Since there is a culture war article that has been able to establish events and issues that have evoked the "culture war" designation, things mentioned there (and their related articles) would be suitable candidates for this category. I glanced through the cat, and everything there I would have no objection including (except maybe public nudity - is that really in any kind of substantial dispute?). It's more apparent than it would initially seem about what constitutes a "culture war" issue: Iraq War? No. Gay marriage? Yes. I think this is a case of the proof is in the pudding in whether or not appropriate items will be placed there. And to address usefulness, it would group items that have lead to the evolution of US social norms.--Esprit15d 14:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Category:United States Culture War issues as per Category talk:Issue in the Culture Wars. Thryduulf 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support that name change as well.--Esprit15d 17:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to something making it US specific, since that is what the term culture war usually refers to (as far as I know). The Ungovernable Force 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The current name is too vague and informal an a good number of these topics are not U.S. specific so having them in a U.S. category is inappropriate. The U.S. has no better claim over articles on global topics than any other country. Bhoeble 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I started the category some months back as a way of connecting political issues that were relatable only in that they were "culture war" issues. I don't see the category as being hopelessly POV, though I think it requires significant editorial restraint and oversight to prevent POV-pushers from imposing arbitrary agenda. --ScienceApologist 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not just worried about NPOV, but also original research. The dispute on what should be included (eg nudity) is an indicator that original research is being done. Andjam 12:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and rename. It has been a major political issue for 20+ years and needs thorough coverage. Rjensen 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User:Esprit15d thinks that it is "apparent" that the Iraq war is not a culture war issue, but later lists Bush-Blair memo (a war issue) as an item listed in the culture war category. If a single person cannot agree what is a culture war issue, how can wikipedia? Andjam 04:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: There're two issues covered in this cat (both of which I addressed separately): culture and the US. The Bush-Blair memo is a US issue (yes), but not a culture issue, so it doesn't belong there. I think that's pretty clear. I really don't really know what more to say.--Esprit15d 13:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe I just don't understand the term "Culture War". The Culture War article does little to explain it. To me this seems like an indiscriminate collection of articles that involve some sort of political or social controversy. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am, we need a much clearer definition of "culture war" and the issues that belong to it. Powers 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that. There are several books and sources that "legitimized" the term, and stronger reference to such sources can be made in the article, which I (and others I'm sure) can incorporate more cohesively.--Esprit15d 13:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Esprit. 128.36.90.72 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, though I think it should be "Issues" not "Issue" Guettarda 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Category:United States Culture War issues, or something along those lines. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful cat. Where's the POV? FeloniousMonk 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The POV is in determining what constitutes a Culture War issue. Given the amorphous definition of the term itself, I don't see how any one issue can be classified as unambiguously a member. Further, even if the POV argument isn't compelling enough, I just don't see the usefulness of grouping Intelligent design with Public nudity and English-only movement. Maybe you can explain it to me. Powers 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the category can seem arbitrary, but that's part of the particular raison d'être for categorizing in the first place. There is nothing more NPOV than an arbitrary categorization where the meaning is stripped from the category (no one is taking sides as to which political position is "correct", the category just declares the issues to be of a particular volatile sort). Connections are drawn elsewhere so this type of categorization is not novel to Wikipedia. E.g., there are a number of conservative groups that draw comparisons between loose morals (i.e. public nudity – though I'm not aware of a cited statement that this is part of the culture wars – but I digress) and the acceptance of evolution in the public school system (i.e. intelligent design controversy). As well, a good portion of these pundits also believe that America is the "beacon on the hill" and its monolithic language is patriotically worth preserving against invasion (i.e. English-only movement). The "culture war" language is adopted to summarize the beseiged and aggressive approach to this discourse. The polarization and false-dichotomization of the American political system has resulted recently in a claim of a bifurcation between cultures (e.g. "red state culture" and "blue state culture", "coastal elitism" and "heartland", "cities" and "rural", "religious" and "secular", etc.) that is embraced by commentators with varied perspectives. Yes, the current culture war article could expand a lot more on this, but the political issues labeled as "culture wars" are in principle neutrally observable. Yes, there are issues with inappropriate categorization of articles, but all that should be required to adequately categorize a particular article is a reference to a notable commentator who claims that the issue is representative of the culture wars. Such quotes are fairly easy to come by these days. --ScienceApologist 05:00, 11 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:Compositions by Instrumentation

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 17:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article trying to be a category ProveIt (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No prejudice against recreation as an article, ideally with fewer redlinks. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 16:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I usually vote for this things to be moved to an article, but there's no substance. He should start a project (either personally or with WP) to create these articles. Until then, this needs to be deleted.--Esprit15d 18:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; features incorrect capitalization anyway. David Kernow 02:12, 5 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.


< April 2 April 4 >

April 3

Northern Irish categories (block rename proposal)

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are all grammatically incorrect. According to various opinion polls taken in Northern Ireland, "Northern Irish" is the most neutral term, and is preferred over and above terms such as "Ulster-person (man/woman)", "British", "Irish" or "Scots-Irish". The term "Northern Ireland" or, by extention, "Northern Irelander", is never used except in the context of saying "I come from Northern Ireland".. just as an English person might say "I come from England".

Further to this, the category Category:Northern Irish people is cognate with other similar categories (see English people, Scottish people, Welsh people, British people, Irish people, French people, German people, European people etc etc). The accepted standard in Wikipedia seems to be Category:Fooian Fooers. I see no reason that Northern Irish people should be treated any differently.

As per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006 April 1#Category:Northern Ireland people to Category:People of Northern Ireland...

Categories for moving:
Category:Lists of Northern Ireland people to Category:Lists of Northern Irish people

Category:Arts and culture in Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish arts and culture
Category:Northern Ireland actors to Category:Northern Irish actors
Category:Northern Ireland art to Category:Northern Irish art
Category:Northern Ireland artists to Category:Northern Irish artists
Category:Northern Ireland astronomers to Category:Northern Irish astronomers
Category:Northern Ireland athletes to Category:Northern Irish athletes
Category:Northern Ireland biologists to Category:Northern Irish biologists
Category:Northern Ireland boxers to Category:Northern Irish boxers
Category:Northern Ireland businesspeople to Category:Northern Irish businesspeople
Category:Northern Ireland chemists to Category:Northern Irish chemists
Category:Northern Ireland cinema to Category:Northern Irish cinema
Category:Northern Ireland clergy to Category:Northern Irish clergy
Category:Northern Ireland comedians to Category:Northern Irish comedians
Category:Northern Ireland composers to Category:Northern Irish composers
Category:Northern Ireland culture to Category:Northern Irish culture
Category:Northern Ireland doctors to Category:Northern Irish doctors
Category:Northern Ireland dramatists and playwrights to Category:Northern Irish dramatists and playwrights
Category:Northern Ireland essayists to Category:Northern Irish essayists
Category:Northern Ireland engineers to Category:Northern Irish engineers
Category:Northern Ireland entomologists to Category:Northern Irish entomologists
Category:Northern Ireland film directors to Category:Northern Irish film directors
Category:Northern Ireland football clubs to Category:Northern Irish football clubs
Category:Northern Ireland football competitions to Category:Northern Irish football competitions
Category:Northern Ireland football managers to Category:Northern Irish football managers
Category:Northern Ireland footballers to Category:Northern Irish fottballers
Category:Northern Ireland Formula One drivers to Category:Northern Irish Formula One drivers
Category:Northern Ireland Gaelic sportspeople to Category:Northern Irish Gaelic sportspeople
Category:Northern Ireland golfers to Category:Northern Irish golfers
Category:Northern Ireland ice hockey players to Category:Northern Irish ice hockey players
Category:Northern Ireland illustrators to Category:Northern Irish illustrators
Category:Northern Ireland installation artists to Category:Northern Irish installation artists
Category:Northern Ireland inventors to Category:Northern Irish inventors
Category:Northern Ireland literature to Category:Northern Irish literature
Category:Northern Ireland mathematicians to Category:Northern Irish mathematicians
Category:Northern Ireland media to Category:Northern Irish media
Category:Northern Ireland motorcycle racers to Category:Northern Irish motorcycle racers
Category:Northern Ireland multimedia artists to Category:Northern Irish multimedia artists
Category:Northern Ireland music to Category:Northern Irish music
Category:Northern Ireland musical groups to Category:Northern Irish musical groups
Category:Northern Ireland musicians to Category:Northern Irish musicians
Category:Northern Ireland naturalists to Category:Northern Irish naturalists
Category:Northern Ireland newspapers to Category:Northern Irish newspapers
Category:Northern Ireland novelists to Category:Northern Irish novelists
Category:Northern Ireland organisations to Category:Northern Irish organisations
Category:Northern Ireland painters to Category:Northern Irish painters
Category:Northern Ireland people by county to Category:Northern Irish people by county
Category:Northern Ireland performance artists to Category:Northern Irish performance artists
Category:Northern Ireland philosophers to Category:Northern Irish philosophers
Category:Northern Ireland photographers to Category:Northern Irish photographers
Category:Northern Ireland physicists to Category:Northern Irish physicists
Category:Northern Ireland poets to Category:Northern Irish poets
Category:Northern Ireland politicians to Category:Northern Irish politicians
Category:Northern Ireland professional wrestlers to Category:Northern Irish professional wrestlers
Category:Northern Ireland racecar drivers to Category:Northern Irish racecar drivers
Category:Northern Ireland radio to Category:Northern Irish radio
Category:Northern Ireland radio personalities to Category:Northern Irish radio personalities
Category:Northern Ireland radio programmes to Category:Northern Irish radio programmes
Category:Northern Ireland scholars to Category:Northern Irish scholars
Category:Northern Ireland scientists to Category:Northern Irish scientists
Category:Northern Ireland science fiction writers to Category:Northern Irish science fiction writers
Category:Northern Ireland screenwriters to Category:Northern Irish screenwriters
Category:Northern Ireland sculptors to Category:Northern Irish sculptors
Category:Northern Ireland snooker players to Category:Northern Irish snooker players
Category:Northern Ireland society to Category:Northern Irish society
Category:Northern Ireland songwriters to Category:Northern Irish songwriters
Category:Northern Ireland television to Category:Northern Irish television
Category:Northern Ireland television presenters to Category:Northern Irish television presenters
Category:Northern Ireland television programmes to Category:Northern Irish television programmes
Category:Northern Ireland theatre to Category:Northern Irish theatre
Category:Northern Ireland universities to Category:Northern Irish universities
Category:Northern Ireland video artists to Category:Northern Irish video artists
Category:Lists of Northern Ireland people to Category:Lists of Northern Irish people
Category:People by Northern Ireland city to Category:People by Northern Irish city
Category:Pool players of Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish pool players
Category:Sportspeople of Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Irish sportspeople

Merge:
Category:Northern Ireland non-fiction writers to Category:Northern Irish non-fiction writers
Category:Northern Ireland people by occupation to Category:Northern Irish people by occupation
Category:Northern Ireland writers to Category:Northern Irish writers

--Mal 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please specify exactly which super-cat you mean Valiantis. --Mal 16:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant Category:Northern Ireland people. If that is renamed (as is likely) then I think these subcats should all follow suit. I was (perhaps unnecessarily) concerned we might end up with a situation where the higher level cat was renamed and not the subcats (or vice-versa). Apologies if my comment was unclear. Valiantis 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and I've removed that cat from the list above. --Mal 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had no idea there was an doubt on the matter until the issue arose here. Bhoeble 16:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Her Pegship 01:29, 5 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:Swords of the Ancients

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spam ... ProveIt (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and list all articles in category for deletion. Lbbzman 21:38, 5 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:Performers Banned From The Ed Sullivan Show

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 15:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 possible members, ever ... -- ProveIt (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete trivia. -- Samuel Wantman 23:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mention it in the article about the show. Hawkestone 04:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Also features incorrect capitalization. David Kernow 02:20, 5 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:User Wes Brown

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity category created by User:Stevennnnnnnnnn. Olessi 22:06, 3 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:Cargo aircraft

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - TexasAndroid 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is used only for civil aircraft, and thus should be renamed Category:Civil transport aircraft, which would thus bring it more closely in line with the equivalent military category, Category:Military transport aircraft. There is no danger that this renaming will cause confusion, because no airliner is ever referred to as a civil transport aircraft. In fact, this renaming will actually elucidate matters, because it makes it very clear that the category refers only to civil aircraft—cargo aircraft could theoretically include both military and civil categories. Ingoolemo talk 17:19, 3 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:Military reconnaissance aircraft

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, there is no such thing as a Civil reconnaissance aircraft; reconnaissance is solely a military venture. Thus, this title is redundant, and I propose it be renamed Category:Reconnaissance aircraft, because the new title will still be completely unambiguous. (The same renaming should take place for all constituent categories as well. Ingoolemo talk 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the proposed renaming simplifies things Where (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE the CIA is not a military organization, but it has reconnaissance aircraft. Various police organizations also have reconnaissance aircraft. 132.205.45.110 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Therefore, the renaming makes more sense than the current scheme, because it allows the reconnaissance aircraft you cited above to be lumped together with all reconnaissance aircraft—most of which are military in origin. The modified aircraft used by police forces are generally not notable enough for articles. Ingoolemo talk 02:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it needs a supercategory to umbrella the non-military recon aircraft. I was seem to have forgottent to mention that. 132.205.44.134 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support NASA uses a few also, but it's the same category. --Blainster 07:58, 7 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:None

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and unused ... perhaps redirect to Category:Category needed? -- ProveIt (talk) 16:34, 3 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:KBBW

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been a radio station article, creator changed his mind. ProveIt (talk) 16:26, 3 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:Greek military aircrat

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and misspelled -- ProveIt (talk) 15:49, 3 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:Health in Prague

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dental Clinic Spam ... ProveIt (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This isn't a category, but an article, and the article is an advert. Bhoeble 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not my nomination by the way. Bhoeble 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty cat and ad Where (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoort 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. David Kernow 02:29, 5 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:Warhammer 40,000 Gods

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 Deleta. - TexasAndroid 14:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All articles moved to the correctly capitalised Category:Warhammer 40,000 gods. This should probably have been done as a speedy rename, but I've already moved the articles. I'll undo the moves and do it that way if that would expedite things. Pak21 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - You're right, it likely should have been a speedy rename, but I don't see any reason to move them back at this point, when they would almost certainly just be moved again in a few days. (assuming there is no opposition) - TexasAndroid 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Where (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the one who did the FUBAR on the original name. My bad. Delete anyway. -- Saberwyn 22:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. David Kernow 02:30, 5 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:Rhode Island State Highways to Category:Numbered routes in Rhode Island

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 15:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is for numbered routes, not state highways (roads maintained by the state). --SPUI (talk - RFC) 10:52, 3 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:Lists of people by university affiliation

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 15:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename subcategories from Lists of people by university affiliation - foo to Lists of people by university in foo to match parent Category:People by university. - EurekaLott 06:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. I ought to know better than to start making nominations when I have no business being awake. I've amended the initial proposal to address your concerns. - EurekaLott 01:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename all per revised nom. -choster 13:31, 7 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:Movie studios to Category:Film studios

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 15:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match category:Film and most of the other subcategories of that category. Calsicol 05:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Note: WikiProject Films is probably hoping to change the article title to "Film studios" as well, per their naming convention guidelines. Her Pegship 21:26, 8 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:Movie websites to Category:Film websites

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 15:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match category:Film and most of the other subcategories of that category. Calsicol 05:49, 3 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:Jim Carrey films

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

The result of the debate was delete – Sceptre (Talk) 09:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A follow up to the below. This is the only subcategory. Calsicol 05:29, 3 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:Films by actor

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a consensus against dividing films by actor? Calsicol 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete as nominated. Calsicol 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "filmography" is enough Crumbsucker 10:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. Amalas 14:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed. Go to the article and add links to the cast, or go to an actor and click on "what links here". -- Samuel Wantman 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why can't we apply that same logic to categories for actors by film or TV show? Arniep 12:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me. Nominate en masse and I'll support deleting them. In general we should not have these sort of categories if and when scores of articles will end up being in scores of categories. -- Samuel Wantman 02:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated them back in December and got whacked with a torrent of speedy keeps Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_26#Actors_by_series_and_its_sub-categories. Arniep 12:05, 6 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:Economic Systems JEL:P

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Economic systems. - TexasAndroid 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The child of this category should just be inserted in its parent. I'm not sure why it has such a weird name. Beland 04:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also delete all other JEL-coded subcategories of Category:Economics --Francis Schonken 09:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The code JEL refers to the JEL classification codes system used by the Journal of Economic Literature. I proposed using this system at Talk:Economics in response to general concern about the poor state of the economics categories (see also Category_talk:Economics and got limited but positive response. I suggest more discussion there, rather than trying to deal with the categories piecemeal.JQ 04:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go this way, I think you should propose some alternative approach to fixing the evident and long-standing problems with the economics categories. As was established in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, the approach taken in previous instances of this kind such as SOC hasn't been to start from scratch but to use a coherent system as a basis. JQ 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove JEL codes from category names --Henrygb 22:24, 7 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:Swimming World Disabled Swimmers of the Year to Category:Swimming World World Disabled Swimmers of the Year

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

The result of the debate was Delete the first category (Empty, and creator says it's a mistake). No consensous on rename of second cat (several possible new names tossed out, but no consensous reached on final name. - TexasAndroid 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake - I created a duplicate - the first category is wrong.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:54, 3 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:World Cup cricketers of the Scotland to Category:World Cup cricketers of Scotland

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 Merge. - TexasAndroid 14:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another careless mistake. Please delete the first. Thankyou.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:54, 3 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:Operations to Category:Military operations

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More specific name; otherwise I could put "open-heart surgery" in this category. Nobunaga24 02:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename for now; most of those articles need to be renamed anyways, as operational codenames generally shouldn't be used as article titles. Kirill Lokshin 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 15:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Hoort 21:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Mattbr30 21:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I imagine this as a parent category for "Category:Military operations of the X", where X = Something/Somewhere war/conflict/etc, e.g. "Military operations of the Gulf War"...? David Kernow 02:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Looper5920 11:33, 6 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:Cambodian images to Category:Images of Cambodia

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Cambodia is currently an empty category, but it is the standard nomenclature for subcategories of Category:Images by country. - EurekaLott 02:32, 3 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:Brigades of the United States to Category:Brigades of the United States Army

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - subcategory of Category:United States Army units, more specific name. Nobunaga24 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as suggested. Cyane 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as with similar proposals above. David Kernow 02:50, 5 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:Corps of the United States to Category:Corps of the United States Army

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - More specific name. The category is a subcategory of Category:United States Army units. Nobunaga24 01:34, 3 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:United States armed forces to Category:Military of the United States

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Redundant categories, military of the United States and United States armed forces are the exact same thing. Nobunaga24 00:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as per nom. Sumahoy 01:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. Amalas 14:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Cyane 00:36, 4 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:USGA championships to Category:United States Golf Association championships

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation should be removed for clarity, as many have before it. Sumahoy 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename as above. Sumahoy 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated. Amalas 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 17:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (creator of category)[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:Badges of the United States military to Category:Awards and decorations of the United States military

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a separate category for militay badges is a bit redundant, and really an unnecessary subcategory - it's like having a category for cars, then a subcategory for green cars. Badges are awards and decorations. There is no category for Medals of the United States Military, nor ribbons, nor paper certificates, etc etc. It would be much better to merge, then break the badges down by the already existing categories of Category:United States Air Force awards, Category:United States Army awards, etc. Nobunaga24 00:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as nominated. Amalas 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I suspect "Awards and decorations of the United States X" categories viable, where X = Army, Navy, etc. David Kernow 02:53, 5 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.


< April 1 April 3 >

April 2

Category:Linux web browsers

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These browsers are not Linux specific, they don't contain hooks which require any particular kernel. They are dependant on X Windows. Should probably be renamed to X web browsers or X Windows browsers, perhaps POSIX web browsers. 65.95.124.5 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As Free Software usually, with Free being the descriptor. 65.95.124.5 23:00, 4 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:Tahitian models

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one member, unlikely will be added to. Arniep 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She was an American citizen I think so she should be (someone has done it) in American models. Arniep 11:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then I'm fine if we delete the entire category.--Mike Selinker 23:54, 3 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:Webcomic genres

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one entry, and it seems unlikely that it will grow very much (if at all). – Seancdaug 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link, it lists the subcategories. 65.95.124.5 22:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those are subcategories of Category:Webcomics by genre, not of this. The two categories are not connected by categorization, merely by a hand-coded wikilink. – Seancdaug 22:45, 5 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:Humor webcomics

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, and essentially redundant with Category:Comedy webcomics. – Seancdaug 20:47, 2 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:U.S. Highway 66 to Category:U.S. Route 66

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 17:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a speedy. Does not come close to any of the named criteria for being a speedy. Valiantis 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "U.S. Route X" is the term used by AASHTO, and in this case the road was commonly known as "Route 66". --SPUI (talk - RFC) 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per above. I believe this does qualify for consistency with established naming conventions as described in the criteria. If not, said criteria are in gross need of reform. — Apr. 2, '06 [21:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Support as above. I originally created this category when the article was titled "U.S. Highway 66". I made a comment somewhere (possibly the talk page) about changing it, but didn't go any further. Rt66lt 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 132.205.45.110 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. David Kernow 02:54, 5 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:Communities on U.S. Highway 66 to Category:Communities on U.S. Route 66

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"U.S. Route 66" is both the official and most commonly used name for this route. — Apr. 2, '06 [16:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a speedy. Does not come close to any of the named criteria for being a speedy. Valiantis 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, see above. — Apr. 2, '06 [21:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Support/Comment Same as I stated under Category:U.S. Highway 66 above. Only, to me, "communities" seems odd in reference to large cities (such as Chicago and St. Louis). I requested comments about a genereic term for cities, towns, villages, etc. on the Village Pump, and the term "populated places" was suggested. I think Category:Populated places on U.S. Route 66 would be better. This category was originally "Cities on U.S. Highway 66" and was changed to avoid the legal definition of cities.Rt66lt 00:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting thought, but people aren't going to think of that title when they edit these articles. I don't believe in forcing people to read the manual on a per-edit basis. On the other hand, though, anything that's going to be added to the category probably already has been, in which case it wouldn't matter. If we were going to use a name I'd say "Cities and towns..." would be better, or just leave it, whatever. — Apr. 3, '06 [00:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • SUPPORT 132.205.45.110 20:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. David Kernow 02:54, 5 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:User cpp-0 to Category:User c++-0

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with User cpp-1, cpp2, etc. Gennaro Prota 19:59, 2 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:User cpp-N to Category:User c++-N

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with User cpp-1, cpp2, etc. Note: it would be useful for many templates to make both User c++-X and User C++-X, with an uppercase 'c', refer to the same page. Would this be possible? Gennaro Prota 19:59, 2 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:Videogames journalism to Category:Computer and video game journalism

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encompasses both computer and video games and has correct spacing between words. ~ Hibana 02:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection Not eligible for speedy renaming. CalJW 14:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But please don't stretch the speedy renaming criteria. CalJW 20:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed. David Kernow 02:55, 5 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:Battlestar Galactica planets to Category:Battlestar Galactica locations

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 Withdrawn. - TexasAndroid 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, "Battlestar Galactica planets" is a sub-catagory of "Battlestar Galactica locations", however, there are 14 planet articles and only 2 location articles. Since planets are considered to be geographical locations more than objects anyway (like cities), then this category system should be simplified by removing the "planets" category and putting the articles in the "locations" category. Thank you.  -- Run!  19:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Withdraw nom.  -- Run!  11:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE clearly more planets and more locations can be added/created 132.205.45.110 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mike S. ×Meegs 05:48, 4 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:Science fiction by franchise to Category:Science fiction works by series name

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - TexasAndroid 18:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, plus grossly wrong use of word "franchise", which is not a synonym for "series" (but is being used so here). Need to look for other categories with same misnomer problem as well. 12.73.196.146 01:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved from speedy. This is exactly the right use of franchise. Franchise defines more than the TV or book series. It defines the exclusive property rights to sell everything from action figures to underwear with Yoda on them. This is a modern usage of the term, and Wikipedia can be modern. Oppose.--Mike Selinker 16:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE franchise sounds better. Or alternately, science fiction by fictional universe 132.205.45.110 20:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - I created this category with SF media properties that span mediums in mind, and originally chose the word "millieu." It was changed to "franchise," which works better, and is more descriptive. I'm open to suggestions for a better word, but I don't think "by series name" works. There is already Category:Science fiction series, but is intended for book series. It should probably be renamed Category:science fiction book series. MakeRocketGoNow 04:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per each of the above. ×Meegs 05:50, 4 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.

Transport in the Commonwealth

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following up the transport nominations over the last two or three days these are the by country transport categories for Commonwealth countries which should be renamed to reflect local usage and are not covered by the earlier nominations. The reason why most of the transport(ation) categories were created as "transportation in" is that most or all of the articles were created from CIA World Factbook data by an American user with a bot and the categories were made to match. CalJW 04:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename all CalJW 15:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom. Valiantis 18:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. --Mais oui! 20:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Among the people who created these categories, I count a Canadian, a Dutchman, a Trinidadian, three British, and one American, so I'm guessing the categories were created from red links already on the articles? This is a textbook example for category redirects, whatever the outcome. — Apr. 2, '06 [21:55] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    • I can't see why any British person would have created these if they knew that American English is not compulsory in Wikipedia, but I think that some people don't realise that this is not just an American controlled project. But Canada has succumbed to American linguistic influences sadly. ReeseM 00:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. ReeseM 00:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all; they're consistently named using a perfectly valid and correctly spelled word. There's no reason to take the time and effort imposing British English on Wikipedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They aren't consistent with all the categories which already use "transport". Hawkestone 04:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename They are not correct. They are in a overseas dialect. When that dialect is that of an all too dominant power, that is cultural insensitivity of a high order. Hawkestone 04:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all--cj | talk 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. David Kernow 02:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all --Terence Ong 10:00, 6 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:ADF

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 18:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't categorise articles by what WikiProject lays claim to them. Furthermore, Category:Military of Australia covers the Australian Defence Force. cj | talk 03:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and because mashing people, units, and facilities into a single category will make it utterly useless in short order. Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the existing Australian military categories seem fine to me. --Nick Dowling 06:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CalJW 15:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete duplicate. ReeseM 00:44, 3 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.


< March 31 April 2 >

April 1

Category:Titles borrowed from Shakespeare

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

The result of the debate was Delete, although 'apathy' might be more appropriate given the number of comments. Matchups 02:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another page, List of titles of works based on Shakespearean phrases, which is more comprehensive. Also, the List page is helpfully organized by play and could (but does not yet) provide additional context. Matchups 02:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Works better as a list. Valiantis 18:16, 2 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:People questioning official 9/11 story

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final tally: 16 delete, 7 keep, with one of each tossed as invalid. - TexasAndroid 17:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the history of 9/11 as reported by most journalists, policy experts, government officials, historians, jurists and even the suspects themselves - all this in many countries - are not just an "official 9/11 story". This category creates the impression that it has been created (today) in order to promote the so called "conspiracy theories" and is very misleading. Second, the nuanced opinions of so many individuals can be better expressed in the text. Many of these individuals have opinions on various matters and some Wikipedia articles already have 4 or more lines of categories. Is the sky the limit of categorization? gidonb 01:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nomination gidonb 01:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subjects are too loosely linked and cat is too subjective Deizio 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account". "nuanced opinions" is not a problem, we already have List of jews and List of anarchists, and they are hardly a single monolithic block.--Striver 10:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lists are another ballgame than categories, so the comparison does not fly. Also Jews are an ethno-religious group, anarchism is an ideology. This one is neither, just an opinion. What is next? Category:People who hate when it rains all day? Striver, I hope you will reconsider your vote, as this category is very un-Wikipedian. gidonb 13:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I voted "delete." However, if this is kept, I believe "Category:People who question the 9/11 Commission's findings" is the best title for the category. --Hyperbole 07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something.--Urthogie 11:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an accurately named category and its something people need to know about "celebrities" and their views. -- AmeriCan 18:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ripe for POV-pushing from all sides. Also the phrase "official 9/11 story" smacks of opinion. Furthermore, while this cat does not only include "celebrities", the views of celebrities on political matters are in most cases trivial and not central to their notability and therefore not an appropriate element to categorise them by. Valiantis 18:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The people questioning, their public status and their messages are increasing by the day. This is particularly so since Hollywood icons are speaking out. The relevance of their speaking out is that millions hear this message. I disagree with limiting the title to "questioning the 9/11 Commissions account" since they are not only questioning the account of the Commission, but the accounts put forth by many others, such as Rice saying that they never would have thought planes would be used as weapons but the recent FBI testimony at the Mossaoui trial indicating that they knew for years that planes could be used as weapons. Bov 19:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category simply is too broad since it probably includes well over 50% of the people in the United States. Also verification of every name included could be an issue. If we keep this, then do we need a category for every position "celebrities" take when it is different then the offical government position? Vegaswikian 20:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorization by political opinion is silly. What's next? Category:People questioning String Theory? --Mmx1 23:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category certainly does not define a person. Joelito 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the category is kept, someone should get it alphabetized properly by last name. Indeed, the fact that nobody on the list is done right suggests to me that the creation and population of the list was done by a single individual. Matchups 04:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was created by a single individual, who had only 6 edits before entering the 9/11 conspiracies field, without a user page, who on top of all systematically deletes all entries from his talk page. gidonb 09:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I've done a lot of reading of the Wikipedia, but only a couple hundred small edits over the past 2 years, so I never bothered logging in. (For a time, surfing Wikipedia while being logged in was slower due to caching.) The only thing I removed from my talk page is the Ombudsman's automatic "Welcome to the Wiki" thing. Yes, the 9/11 conspiracies field is the subject matter I have an interest in, and I feel Wikipedia's coverage of this subject matter has has a lot of room for improvement. I'm not here to push a POV, I don't even have a definitive one on this subject matter. I just with Wikipedia's coverage of 9/11 would approach the depth of its coverage of South Park episodes... AlexLibman 05:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe that making this a list in an article is more in line with Wikipedia's standards than making it a category, and the afd on that article/list looks like it's going to end up "no consensus: keep." Since the list can be included in Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks, any given theorist will only be two clicks away from any 9/11 conspiracy article, and that's acceptable. Categories for political beliefs doesn't seem to be a common practice. --Hyperbole 07:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the phrase "official 9/11 story" is POV.--Jersey Devil 11:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, the category was started by one individual, myself, to get things rolling. My bad on the first name sorting, that's easy to fix. IMHO, if more and more otherwise notable people from many different fields voice support for 9/11 conspiracy theories, this category will be much easier to maintain than diluting articles like researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, 9/11 Truth Movement, etc. Only persons whose articles cite specific statements or works that question 9/11 would be added to this category, which would make it far less ambiguous than many other categories. The Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks name suggests that it should list proposed theories (or works that first proposed a specific theory), not all people holding this point of view. I agree with the name change proposals. AlexLibman 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. and Expand and rename to reflect what official account: Category:People questioning 9/11 commission findings or Category:People who think 9/11 commission was fulloshite or Category:People not satisfied with the huge lies contained 9/11 commission findings or something specific like that. Add in the several hundred thousand notables who have expressed their disbelief. Pedant 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uninformative POV pushing. Reader cannot know if belonging in the category means "off-handedly wondered about some little detail once" or "has devoted his life to conspiracy theories" or something in between. 9/11 conspiracycruft has a hugely disproportionate soapbox already. Non-encyclopedic conspiracy POV pushing has gotten way out of hand. Wikipedia is not a conspiracypedia. Weregerbil 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This category does not push a POV, it organizes people with specific inclusion criteria, like the category for Scientologists is neither a promotion of Scientology nor a hate list. If anything, it makes some 9/11 conspiracy pushers look bad by showing that instead of hundreds of notable people clearly agreeing with them, as some of them might claim, there are only dozens. AlexLibman 21:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete much as I dislike people like Gore Vidal they are not in the same Category as David Duke. 132.241.246.111 00:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Gore Vidal removed pending clearer evidence of his exact opinion. Manos: Hands of Fate is no Andrei Rublev, but they're both belong in "1966 films" category - one can look to other categories the article belongs to (and the text itself) to understand how they differ. AlexLibman 21:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to make it clear what "official" means and that this category is only for people who have a well-referenced evidence that they hold this opinion seriously and consistently. Deobfuscator
  • Keep A well know person questioning the official story of 9/11 may not be a researcher so wouldn't belong to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 so why not have an extra category? There are a lot of great thinkers who may not be researchers but go on to important roles. For instance Václav Havel, once a poet, became the first President of the Czech Republic. I don't think these people should be underestimated. Kaimiddleton 06:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as per Deizio's critique, I removed some unverified fence sitters from the category, and made changes for stricter inclusion criteria mentioned in category description and discussion page. The category should definitely be renamed to something like "People who believe non-Muslims were complicit in 9/11", but I leave that to this committee here. I created this category because I believe that it is imperative to break up the chaotic "September 11, 2001 attacks" parent category, which mixed many different concepts, and the much-underused "Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks" category should include books, films, ideas, etc, not all notable people that agree with them - like there is a "Scientology" category for the concept and among its subcategories is "Scientologists" which lists the (otherwise notable) followers. AlexLibman 21:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People who believe non-Muslims were complicit in 9/11" - that is a particularly inappropriate title!! Valiantis 14:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Valiantis. Lets not attack the Islam and Muslims further on this point. I think most Muslims have suffered more than enough by this mega crime made "in their name", without even being asked. gidonb 14:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only that but it makes no sense. This implies that people who for example claim the 9/11 hijackers had official Saudi, Iran, Pakistan and other primarily muslims government support cannot be included in the list whereas someone who says that there was a 20th hijacker who happens to be a non-Muslim who didn't make it for some reason will. Nil Einne 17:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ill-defined, and this trait is not category-worthy for most subjects. Also, please doublecheck your grammar before making a category and adding it to 38 articles. Rhobite 21:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I think these are all Category:Living people, who have nuanced views that a category like this can't capture. Also, such assertations need to be cited and verifiable, or else we risk problems like which happened with John Siegenthaler. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a related AfD discusion on the article. Vegaswikian 21:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename if necessary Nil Einne 17:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV. The category system is too unsubtle for this sort of usage to be appropriate. Bhoeble 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has shades of conspiracy theory culture, which is too prevalent on Wikipedia. Scranchuse 15:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "questioning" the government and its propaganda or not in this context boils down to patriotism. Deciding the 'patriotism' of another individual is a judgment call and is POV. GilliamJF 03:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Questioning" is vague and "offical story" is inappropriate. Nathcer 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Sumahoy 14:41, 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:Ultralights

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category and all constituent categories have been replaced by Category:Ultralight aircraft, which better explains the content. All subcategories of this category should be deleted; renaming has already taken place. Ingoolemo talk 00:02, 2 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:Unification Church Heresies

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title of category belligerent and biased, created by editor who has been noted in the past for deleting VfD tags on his vanity article and for POV edits. Only article contained is full of POV and original research.--Folksong 23:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 100% unnecessary, per nom Deizio 03:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I might have suggested "rename" to Unification Church Splinter Groups, except that I think the only constituent article is going to get deleted anyhow. Matchups 00:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 14:45, 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:Rap songs of the 1990's

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not fit our established categorization scheme (song year and genre are categorize4d seperately, and we as a consensus use "hip hop" and not "rap"). Created by a newbie. --FuriousFreddy 19:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. gidonb 01:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note the common misspelling in the category name: 1990s are from 1/1990 through 12/1999, yet 1990's means belonging specific to the year 1990 (e.g., 1990's rap scene was boring). gidonb 01:44, 2 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:Fjords of Vestland

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled/redundant category. Author has explained mistake in an edit summary. Propose to delete. Nordby73 16:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct title was Category:Fjords of Vestfold. This comes from typing too quickly and thinking too slowly. No point in retaining, as there will never be anything to populate the category. Williamborg 18:17, 1 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:Hip hop singers

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. (No consensous on a rename, either) - TexasAndroid 16:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hip hop singer" is a misnomer (this is a group of singers from other genres -- mostly R&B and reggae -- who frequently appear on hip-hop songs - which actually would include 70% of all R&B artists, making the selection of artists inherently POV) - and artists who hjappen to record hip hop music and other genres as well. A category like this will only seek to confuse readers, and provides little factual encyclopedic value. --FuriousFreddy 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the only reason this category would be confusing is because people are improperly placed in it. Instead of trying to delete it, perhaps it would be better to make sure guys like Nate Dogg are in it, but Reggaeton artists aren't(unless, of course, they make hip hop).--Urthogie 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still too ambiguous. Category:Singers who frequently appear on hip-hop songs is clear, but wordy. --FuriousFreddy 18:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about we deal with the ambiguity by stating what can be included on the categories page?--Urthogie 19:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we call it Category:Rapper-singers?--Urthogie 11:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Keep and deal with the ambiguity by stating what can be included on the categories page as per User:Urthogie Pedant 17:47, 3 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:Northern Ireland people to Category:People of Northern Ireland

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 merge to Category:Northern Irish people. - TexasAndroid 16:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom both to follow the adopted convention with places with similar naming challenges (see Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina and category:People of the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and due to prevalence for this naming over other possible ones as a google search reveals. A search for " "People of Northern Ireland" -wikipedia " gets 203,000 hits, whereas " "People from Northern Ireland" -wikipedia " gets 19,600 (of course the former includes all residents and not just British citizens with NI origins. i prefer the added flexibility - non-British citizens who have contributed to NI society should be included - but suspect a lot of users prefer to keep strict "nationality" requirements); " "Northern Ireland people" -wikipedia " gets 24,000 hits and " "Northern Irish people" gets 917 hits. i offer to nominate relevant sub-cat links should this nom go through. Mayumashu 08:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename or merge per nom and below. David Kernow 11:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Rename as below per convention. I have reservations about the use of Google in choosing category names. --kingboyk 12:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Opinion changed per discussion. --kingboyk 21:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Rename to Category:Northern Irish people (cat already exists!). I don't accept that there is a problem with the form "Northern Irish" as an adjective meaning "relating to Northern Ireland" - this supposed problem is why the current standard form is "Northern Ireland people". Googling "Northern Irish" (without a noun) brings up 1,740,000 hits so clearly it is a widely used "compound adjective" for things relating to Northern Ireland. (In my experience it is not mistaken for a geographical term as people use the form "of the North of Ireland" when they want to make it clear they are speaking geographically rather than politically). WP's own board for users resident in Northern Ireland and/or with an interest in Northern Ireland is called Wikipedia:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board; if anyone is in a position to determine if "Northern Irish" is an acceptable adjective then it would be the people who live there. Valiantis 15:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Northern Irish people per Valiantis. Piccadilly 16:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a problem, eg: Category:New Zealand people, although admittedly New Zealand does not have the issue of different political connotations with different terms (eg. "the North of Ireland" is far, far more than merely a geographical term: it powerfully reveals the constitutional preference of the user - a supporter of a reunited Ireland,... if you did not know). If we do rename then I support the nomination, and not the alternative rename. --Mais oui! 19:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Alt. Rename to Category:Northern Irish people as per Valiantis. --Mais oui! 09:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Zealand people", "Northern Ireland people", etc. is poor English, misleading to all those folk visting here whose native or first language isn't English. Regards, David Kernow 23:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree (no comment on the plan here), New Zealand people is not poor English. New Zealand people is a category which aims to include all New Zealand people on wikipedia just as a Malaysian people category would aim to include all Malaysian people or the German people article aims to include German people... Nil Einne 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Zealand people" treats the noun phrase "New Zealand" as an adjective. Oops. Not the greatest disaster on the planet, but something Wikipedians might strive to avoid – especially on the English Wikipedia, which must be visited by many non-native English speakers... Regards, David Kernow 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Rename as per Valiantis above. Interestingly, the number of Google hits he found for the term (1,740,000) reflects roughly the actual population of the region! I digress.. the fact remains that "Northern Irish" has been shown as a particularly neutral term with the people of Northern Ireland. Various polls throughout the years have shown that, when asked to describe nationality, the term "Northern Irish" is prefered over other terms such as "Ulster", "British", "Irish", and "Scots-Irish". "Northern Ireland" is never used as an adjective in the given context, although people will often say they "come from Northern Ireland" in the same way that English people often say that they "come from England".
  • Alternative Rename to Category:Northern Irish people. What is it with this recent campaign to remove "Northern Irish" from wikipedia article titles? It makes no sense whatsoever. While we are at it, "Northern Irish" should be restored to all the other articles where it seems to have been removed.Jonto 01:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Northern Irish people. American is used in Categories. Texan is used in Categories. Canadian is used in Categories. So why can Northern Irish not be used in categories? In fact I think Northern Irish is more precise as it refers to people from the country not just people who have passed through or been involved. Ben W Bell 06:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt. Rename per Valiantis and aboves Deizio 03:57, 2 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:User lists

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it, but I suspect there is some sort of policy against putting user pages into categories and that's the sole purpose of this category. In addition, the sole article in that category is one that was copied to a user page in order to save it from being deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 19. JeffW 05:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete User pages don't belong in the main category system. Piccadilly 06:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary and likely anti-policy per above Deizio 03:59, 2 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.

Transport in Europe

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

The result of the debate was rename all. - TexasAndroid 16:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English speaking countries in Europe use "transport" and I believe that the other countries tend to use it too. Certainly the EU does and so do the governments of major European countries like France, Germany (nominated separately below and looking likely to go through at the moment) and Russia. The reason why most of the transport(ation) categories were created as "transportation in" is that most or all of the articles were created from CIA World Factbook data by an American user and his bot and the categories were made to match. Therefore rename category:Transportation in Europe to category:Transport in Europe. If this looks like going through I will tag the subcats shortly. CalJW 04:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Piccadilly 06:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Valiantis 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Mais oui! 17:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. ReeseM 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC) - voted before but forgot to sign.[reply]
  • Keep all; they're consistently named using a perfectly valid and correctly spelled word. There's no reason to take the time and effort imposing British English on Wikipedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Transport in X" British English?  Intrigued, David Kernow 23:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transport in the meaning "transportation" is British English. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Hawkestone 04:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom Nil Einne 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Angr. Renaming the categories will create an inconsistent and arbitrary system. GilliamJF 09:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it won't it will reduce the inconsistency which already exists. ReeseM 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all we do not change from center to centre or vica versa. This seems to be a similar case. gidonb 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Consistency on a continental basis is probably the right type of consistency to apply in this case. Nathcer 03:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all I didn't vote before because there were no oppose votes, though it is still pretty clear cut. Bhoeble 14:31, 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:Transportation in Oceania to Category:Transport in Oceania

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 16:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English speaking countries in Oceania (which is the great majority of them) use Commonwealth English. More than half of the population of Oceania lives in Australia, and of all the countries in the world Australia is the one for which using "transportation" instead of "transport" is most inappropriate. Rename CalJW 04:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename per nom. I may be a Yank, but I fully understand why "transportation" would be VERY inappropriate for Australia. — Dale Arnett 06:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Piccadilly 06:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Valiantis 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. ReeseM 00:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all; they're consistently named using a perfectly valid and correctly spelled word. There's no reason to take the time and effort imposing British English on Wikipedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably then your preference is to impose American English on localities that do not use that dialect? Valiantis 14:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Hawkestone 04:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, should add most of Oceania's countries are commonwealth and tend use commonwealth English Nil Einne 17:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. --Darwinek 13:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Nathcer 03:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Bhoeble 14:32, 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:Transportation in the Netherland Antilles

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. the wub "?!" 15:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled duplicate of Category:Transport in the Netherlands Antilles (with an "s" in Netherlands). Delete CalJW 04:06, 1 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:Ice Hockey in Spain

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. the wub "?!" 15:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original creator of the cat blanked it; since the cat already exists at Category:Ice hockey in Spain, which follows convention--Confuzion 03:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete CalJW 04:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete — Dale Arnett 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. David Kernow 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - well Hockey is a different sport to Ice Hockey so the categories aren't equivalent. If there genuinely are no articles on Hockey in Spain then it should go, but if there are some out there they should be added to it and it should be kept. Ben W Bell 06:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Per previous comment, the proposal is not about changing to Hockey, just fixing the capitalization. Matchups 00:53, 3 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:Pollution by country

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While currently the category isn't being heavily used I see no reason it should go. Seems a perfectly valid category to me. Ben W Bell 06:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason for deletion has been given by proposer. It is a valid category which will fill over time. It also is a useful sub-cat of Category:Pollution for ease of navigation and to prevent clutter. Alan Liefting 02:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of the articles in the category seem to be about local pollution, and don't have country names in them. If the category is kept, some text should be added explaining the intended use of the category, along with suggestions for subcategorization by specific country to aid in navigation. Matchups 04:25, 3 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:Pollution in the United States

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first named category only has the one subcategory and it invites POV article selection. The subject area is much better covered within the less pov and widely used Category:Environment by country system. Delete both Sumahoy 03:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete Pollution by country and merge pollution in the United States into Category:American environment, which already contains its only subcategory. CalJW 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per Cal. — Dale Arnett 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and hopefully add more countries to the hierarchy). We have a Category:Pollution; if this is a valid cat, then it is appropriate to subdivide it by country. Pollution is not a POV term; it is only in what is the appropriate political response to pollution that POV emerges. It seems to me quite reasonable to assume that someone may use WP to research the topic of pollution in a particular country. Valiantis 15:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not POV and contains NPOV pollution articles. I fail to see how factual acounts of pollution can be POV. The category will fill with time. Since many article names are not qualified with country name (eg XXXX pollution rather than XXXX pollution in YYYY country) the category system makes navigation to a specific article easier. Alan Liefting 02:34, 3 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:Georgetown residence halls

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category with the more specific, accurate name Category:Georgetown University residence halls. Mah58@georgetown.edu 02:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course, but even this non-deletionist wonders why there needs to be a separate article for each such hall. Matchups 01:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pedant 17:45, 3 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.


< March 30 April 1 >

March 31

Category:Scottish Catholics to Category:Scottish Roman Catholics

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more proper naming conventional to wikipedia cat pages on Category:Roman Catholics. Mayumashu 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename my mistake - proper formal name should be used. (moved down from speedy) Mayumashu 22:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this not be renamed Category:Roman Catholics in Scotland according to proper Wikipedia naming policy? --Mal 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the form is correct - Nationality adjective plus "occupation" is standard. However, I require some convincing that this category should exist at all as I maintain categories by nationality should refer to legal nationality unless there is some context-specific ground why they should be divided into "English X", "Scottish X". Even then, all should be subcats of "British X" and there is no Category:British Roman Catholics. (Indeed there are only three RC cats by nationality). In any case, this is stretching the 4 specific criteria listed above as grounds for a speedy to breaking point. So Not a speedy.
  • I see. So you'd suggest then perhaps, that all categories named "Foos of Northern Ireland" should in fact be renamed "Northern Irish Foos"..? --Mal 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom --- Lancini87 23:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons I listed above, plus the questionable basis of all cats by religion. There are only two articles in this cat currently, one of them was a bishop - who might reasonably be in a cat for Scottish Roman Catholic clergy (as the RC Church hierarchy is separately organised in Scotland, this seems a justifiable ground for a separate Scottish group) - and the other's article makes no mention of his religious denomination at all, therefore it is not encyclopedic. People who are clergy or who are notable for their religious belief or practice might reasonably go in an appropriately named category, people who happen to be Catholic (or Muslim, or Jain, or whatever) incidentally to the reason why they are notable should not be categorised by religion, hence there is no need for any Roman Catholics by nationality subcats. Valiantis 01:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment nomination of Category:Roman Catholics for deletion will result in a keep, so despite a lack of "encyclopedicness" (i agree) so unless we want an extremely long list of all Roman Catholics we need either to sub-cat Roman Catholics by either occupation or nationality. i personally would prefer by occupation simply because the lists for Irish and Italian Catholics to name but two will be immense. but a number of users have suggested listing by nationality is a better route because of the near trivial encyclopedic value in the connection between religious belief one's occupation. Mayumashu 07:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to subdivide by nationality - I agree this is preferable to subdividing by occupation - then the appropriate nationality is "British". Valiantis 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Mais oui! 07:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename more conventional and more neutral (most Christian denominations regard themselves as 'Catholic' and resent the appropriation of the label to one group) --Doc ask? 09:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:04, 1 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.

Cthulhu Mythos

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

The result of the debate was rename all. - TexasAndroid 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Category name fix following mass move of Cthulhu Mythos-related articles. Relevant categories include:

-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 23:55, 31 March 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:Spectacled Cartoon Characters

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Arniep 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe not... Cartoons make heavy use of stereotyping; characters wearing glasses can be an example, so it might be a useful resource. I don't mind if the category is deleted, but I also don't think it's an obvious non-starter... is this a listify case?  Regards, David Kernow 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify? If you like; I personally wouldn't bother, but creating a list is always an option, and one that doesn't require anyone's approval here to do. Postdlf 03:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough – and no, it's not something I'm interested in doing. Just thinking out loud. Thanks for your input, David Kernow 04:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't categorise real people by their wearing of glasses. I see no reason to do so for fictional characters. Also cat is currently an orphan. Valiantis 01:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Valiantis Piccadilly 07:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Valiantis Jll 11:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a name for glasses-wearing cartoon women, Meganekko, perhaps that's why the category was created. Interesting that most of the entries in the category are men. 72.230.60.89 23:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a Japanese term. Bhoeble 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the suggested rename 'Cartoon characters wearing spectacles'. It may appear a trivial category, but it's an interesting sociological observation: real people wear spectacles for their eyesight, but cartoon characters wear spectacles because of a deliberate decision by an artist. I'd be interested in a larger category also for Literary characters wearing spectacles and for Movie heroes wearing spectacles. Myopic Bookworm 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because you can create a category it doesn't mean you should. If there is anything worthwhile to say on this subject, which I doubt, a category doesn't say it. Bhoeble 15:15, 3 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:Mexican people by national origin to Category:Mexican people by ethnic or national origin

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The articles listed in the sub-categories are of both ethnic and national origins. --- Lancini87 23:07, 31 March 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:Roman Catholic actors

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (Strict tally of 4 delete, 2 keep)[reply]

This category was deleted via CfD on 26 August 2005. It was subsequently twice recreated and speedily deleted on each occasion for being a recreation of previously validly deleted content. Following the last speedy deletion, an appeal was made at Wikipedia:Deletion review to undelete the cat. A sufficient number (>50%) of participants felt the category should undeleted; I'm relisting it here to enable a proper decision as to the suitability of categorizing encyclopedia articles in this way. No vote. —Encephalon 22:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete arbitrary intersection of two unrelated traits. If the people by religion categories really need to be subcategorized (though I haven't seen a good argument as to why), then divide by nationality (e.g., "British Roman Catholics", "Italian Roman Catholics"), as the manner in which a religion is practiced actually does differ from country to country. Dividing by occupation doesn't document any similarly meaningful relationship, nor does it track or reflect any extant academic studies. See also recent CFD precedents for Category:Roman Catholic businesspeople and Roman Catholic painters. Postdlf 22:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A cat along the lines of "Actors who are notable for their Roman Catholicism" might just be tolerable (if frankly unnecessary), but that is not this cat. Valiantis 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Valiantis. JoshuaZ 04:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems fine to me, although a list would be better. -- JJay 04:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cat is in need of extra people, but thats not a good reason to delete it! --Irishpunktom\talk 11:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody suggested this had anything to do with the category being underpopulated; I think you accidentally voted in the wrong discussion. Postdlf 14:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf. --Kbdank71 18:04, 6 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:Pollution by county

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

The result of the debate was delete as typo. the wub "?!" 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a spelling mistake when I set up the category. It should have been Category:Pollution by country. Alan Liefting 21:26, 31 March 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:Sports in the United Kingdom to Category:Sport in the United Kingdom

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 merge into Category:Sport in the United Kingdom. the wub "?!" 15:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. Merge into Category:Sport in the United Kingdom Athenaeum 21:20, 31 March 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:United States radio programs to Category:American radio programs

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 15:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match Category:American radio, most similar categories and normal usage. Sumahoy 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Standard usage for cultural categories. Valiantis 01:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Piccadilly 07:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is radio one area of Wikipedia where America = United States (of America)...?  I was under the impression there was a distinction (desired)... Unsure, David Kernow 15:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only a distinction in certain non-English speaking countries and among people making an annoying politically correct point. In English America = the United States; the Americas = the two continents of North and South America. Bhoeble 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My first language is English and I'm from an English-speaking country. There "America" means the US in some contexts but in others it means north and south America. A category has no context. Perhaps this remark of mine will be termed "annoying(ly) politically correct" -- but although I have heard this term "politically correct" bandied around quite a bit, it seldom if ever advances the discussion. Hoary 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Bhoeble 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is to continue to mean "United States radio programs", then either leave as is or rename to "US radio programs". -- Hoary 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdraw the objection immediately above, in view of the million previous hashes-out (see below). -- Hoary 06:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question of whether to use American in US-specific category names has been hashed out a million times already, and the debate has clearly come down in favour. I don't see any valuable reason to reopen it yet again. "American" as a standalone demonym virtually always means "pertaining to the United States" in English; to mean anything else it has to have a geographic disambiguator such as "North" or "South" or "Central" in front of it. Also, as one of the Wikipedians most heavily involved in radio-related edits, I find it infuriating to constantly have to doublecheck which US radio categories use "American" and which use "United States" — having applied this very category to more than a few articles, I never get it right on the first try if I don't look first, and I really have better things to do than double check this every single time I'm doing cleanup on Category:Radio programs. Rename per nom. Bearcat 03:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unfamiliar with these earlier hashes-out. So, "American" is only slightly ambiguous. But, while it's laborious, "United States" isn't ambiguous at all. "US" is entirely unambiguous, and shortest of all. I suggest "US" here, and elsewhere too. -- Hoary 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American. The debate is going to be entirely unresolvable if we reopen it every single time a US-related category comes up for renaming. I have no objection to US, nor to American...I just think that at some point we have to actually settle on a decision and stick with it for good. Bearcat 05:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, fair enough. WP appears to have made a decision. In my ignorable opinion, it was the wrong decision; but I suppose WP must follow that decision (at least until it's reversed, which doesn't seem likely). -- Hoary 06:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Bearcat CalJW 03:46, 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:Transportation in Nigeria to Category:Transport in Nigeria

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't got round to doing a bulk nomination for these, but prompted by the German issue below, here is the transport category for the largest Commonwealth country which has not yet had its category converted into Commonwealth English. Rename CalJW 20:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename as per nom. Sumahoy 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Valiantis 01:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the name is consistent with other transportation categories using a perfectly valid and correctly spelled word. There's no reason to take the time and effort imposing British English on Wikipedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It isn't consistent with the dozens which already use "transport". Hawkestone 04:44, 4 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:Man-made Pokémon

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic fancruft. Serves no real significance in the Pokémon world. Andros 1337 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Alan Liefting 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief. Delete, please. —Encephalon 22:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems like an interesting way of classifying them. Maybe it should be a list? JoshuaZ 04:59, 2 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:Courage

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains one article, and unlikely to grow. Unnecessary. SeventyThree(Talk) 19:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Woolly category - an attempt to populate it will likely create POV issues. Sumahoy 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. Alan Liefting 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sumahoy; category too vague as presently named. David Kernow 00:17, 1 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:Enemy of the United States

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imprecise at best, POV all around. choster 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I can't fathom a valid use or justification for this. Postdlf 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Historically, I have heard of the ancient Roman Senate granting the title "Friend of Rome", but I doubt the U.S. Congress has created an opposite counterpart. — Eoghanacht talk 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Piccadilly 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:People denounced as enemies by the Bush regime might be more accurate as they decline to offer evidence that these people actually did anything against the United States. CalJW 20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. David Kernow 15:49, 1 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:Berlin transportation to Category:Transport in Berlin or Category:Transportation in Berlin

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Transport in Berlin. - TexasAndroid 15:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Currently ill-formed. When I nominated it for a speedy to "Category:Transportion in Berlin", Valiantis pointed out:

We have Category:Transportation in Germany but as subcats are found Category:Transport in Hamburg, Category:Transport in Munich, Category:Tram transport in Germany & Category:Rail transport in Germany. The main article for Germany is called Transport in Germany. Is there a guideline as to whether the BE or the AE form should be used? Clearly not a speedy as this is a long-time contentious issue, and this proposal seems to be stretching the criteria for a speedy as listed above in any case. Valiantis 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which motivated both this nom and the one below. While I am not sure how to proceed with this, we really ought to get rid of this ill-formed name, however we decide to handle the American/Commonwealth English issue on the -ation. I therefore support rename into whatever the outcome is for Category:Transportation in Germany. TheGrappler 16:56, 31 March 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:Transportation in Germany to Category:Transport in Germany

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 15:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather marginal American/Commonwealth English choice. This was brought to my attention as an issue however when I nominated Category:Berlin transportation for a speedy and Valiantis pointed out:

We have Category:Transportation in Germany but as subcats are found Category:Transport in Hamburg, Category:Transport in Munich, Category:Tram transport in Germany & Category:Rail transport in Germany. The main article for Germany is called Transport in Germany. Is there a guideline as to whether the BE or the AE form should be used? Clearly not a speedy as this is a long-time contentious issue, and this proposal seems to be stretching the criteria for a speedy as listed above in any case. Valiantis 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to resolve this issue but clearly it is inconsistent (and arguably unsustainable) for the current state to continue. I (weakly) suggest making the category follow the form of the main article and the majority of its subcategories. TheGrappler 16:56, 31 March 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:Years in Poland and its subcategories

Category:1970 in Poland, Category:1981 in Poland, Category:1989 in Poland, Category:1990 in Poland, Category:1991 in Poland, Category:1993 in Poland, Category:1995 in Poland, Category:1997 in Poland, Category:2000 in Poland, Category:2001 in Poland, Category:2004 in Poland, Category:2005 in Poland

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

The result of the debate was Delete subcats, Keep parent. - TexasAndroid 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These categories had one or two article each, and they have no potential for growth. They only add clutter. Appleseed (Talk) 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain on the subcategories but Keep Category:Years in Poland; over 20 other countries have a corresponding category, it is the place to categorise articles of the "1970 in Fooland" variety. Most, however, do not have separate categories for each year, but I don't see that they are inherently unable to grow. The US and UK both have subcats for individual years and some of these subcats contain a dozen articles each and I can see room to expand them further; I presume that Poland has as many events as other large countries. Valiantis 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Years in Poland. Delete subcategories (i.e. Category:1981 in Poland). I was under the impression that Years in Fooland was only for 1934 in Fooland and so on, hence the subcats will only ever contain one article. Articles on events should go into Category:History of Poland and it's subcategories. SeventyThree(Talk) 19:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Years in Poland. Delete any subcategories which are empty at the end of the debate, but in principle they are legitimate. CalJW 20:43, 31 March 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:Bestsellers

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bestselling what, over what time period, and according to whom? choster 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Valiantis 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Vossanova 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vague and prone to misuse. CalJW 20:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- vague. - Longhair 21:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for some really good reason. Postdlf 21:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally used for books but contains a musician. Alan Liefting 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague, per nom. David Kernow 00:21, 1 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:Sketch comedy shows → Category:Sketch comedy television shows

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Television sketch shows. the wub "?!" 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All contents within the category are related to television sketch comedy shows. Suggesting a rename to better describe the category content. -- Longhair 11:06, 31 March 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:Art photographers

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 up merge. - TexasAndroid 16:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category whose meaning comes perilously close to, or actually is, "Photographers whose work rises to the status of art", or even more simply "Really good photographers" — and thus one that's doomed to be a PoV battlefield if it's used at all. Please see the category's talk page for an amicable discussion from 13–17 March, which establishes that "Art photographer" does not mean somebody who conscientiously or professionally takes photographs of what are recognized to be works of art (so the term is not analogous to "landscape photographer"), but does not clear up much beside this. Even if we can somehow avoid PoV, "Art photographer" conflates (a) photographers who consciously aspire to art (whether or not they do so as part of what is referred to, occasionally with a touch of sarcasm, as "Art photography"), and (b) photographers who, whatever they were or are intending to do, have achieved what is called art. And as for (b), my response to the bright line of museum shows is workable and has been used for years to define which painters or other craftsmen work merit being called art remains the same as it was in the talk page: unless we insist on one-man shows or (semi-) permanent display, that definition would cover a very large percentage of the photographers who get, or are likely to get, articles in WP. Hoary 08:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with the main photographers category for reasons stated by Hoary Athenaeum 14:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Hoary. Postdlf 14:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with category:photographers. Hoary's explanation puts it perfectly. Pinkville 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. CalJW 20:46, 31 March 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:Cork people to Category:Natives of County Cork

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 merge. - TexasAndroid 16:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge people who have been listed on the 'Cork people' page are both from the city and county of Cork and the city is part of the county. Mayumashu 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom, though the target should probably be renamed to "People from County Cork." Postdlf 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually, i agree but the whole set of like British and Irish category pages would need to be renamed and i suspect (from what i ve seen of voting on people cat pages) British and Irish users would vote to keep as is. it s the case, isn t it, that "people from" allows for including long-term residents who were not born in the place in question where "natives of" allows for inclusion of people who were merely born there and neither were affected by nor affect the place Mayumashu 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; a distinction between "Natives of" and "People from" might be assumed. Make all "People from X" subsume "Natives of X" categories and sort accordingly?  Regards, David Kernow 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much point in categorizing people by where they were born but had no other connection (I myself was born in a city that I have never lived in); that's merely trivia. If people are to be categorized by locality, it should be on the basis of having a substantial connection to a place, because of long-term residence and/or having become notable because of their activities there. Postdlf 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i mostly agree. for me it where one grows up or resides long-term in adult age, but not where one was born. i think the best naming structure would be 'people of fooian', as is used with the Australian cat names - it s vague enough to allow both natives and non-natives. and also i wonder if most British users consider nativesness to mean merely being born in the locale, or having grown up there but not necessarily been born there? determining contribution to a locale is POV, perhaps too POV; basing the categorizing on long-term residence (either when young or older) is less POV. non long-term residents with contribution to the locale could be put in the locale's supra-cat, (ie. Category:Lincoln, Nebraska but not Category:People from Lincoln, Nebraska Mayumashu 10:50, 3 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:Pulp heroes and villians

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

The result of the debate was rename. (No Consensous on split) - TexasAndroid 16:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 'villains' (spelling). Charles Matthews 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If no split, I agree that rename needed. David Kernow 02:07, 6 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:Regiments of the United States

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC) virtually identical to Category:Regiments of the United States Army, which is a subcategory of this category, kind of a circular reference. Not really a merge candidate; just adds an unnecessary layer Nobunaga24 06:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Postdlf 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to redirect categories? If not then delete this. Athenaeum 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect; so far as I'm aware, the U.S. doesn't have any regiments, but the U.S. Army does. David Kernow 00:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Jll 11:15, 1 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:U.S. Navy sailors

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. the wub "?!" 14:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category was renamed, but for some reason this was left. It's an empty category, probably speedy, but I didn't know how to list for speedy deletion Nobunaga24 05:49, 31 March 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:Wikiproject for The University of Texas at Austin to Category:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 15:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match project name — WikiProject University of Texas at Austin — and per similar categories at Category:WikiProjects. jareha (comments) 01:35, 31 March 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.


< March 29 March 31 >

March 30

Category:Historic United States federal legislation

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete. The category states, "These articles concern United States federal legislation that are of historic significance, but are no longer in complete effect." However, few statutes are in complete effect as many get modified over time. I think I understand the intent of this category, however. I just can't find a way to express it in a rename. Frankly, I'm afraid there's really no true reason to have this category and there's no useful standard by which articles could be added. Therefore, the articles in this category ought to be recategorized into Category:United States federal legislation or one of that category's subcategories (such as Category:United States federal labor legislation. —Markles 01:19, 31 March 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.

Migratory birds

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 19:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories Migratory birds (Eastern hemisphere) and Migratory birds (Western hemisphere) should, I feel, be renamed. Many species in either hemisphere are to some extent migratory, but with some resident populations. These categories on the other hand appear to have been set up to contain only those species which are obligate long-distance (?trans-equatorial) migrants (i.e. Europe to sub-Saharan Africa or North to South America). The hemisphere aspect to the name is also misleading as it leaves northern Asian breeders migrating to south/south-east Asia without a category. Better terminology exists, and we should base our category names on this instead. SP-KP 23:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with this, the cats are unecessary and difficult to define. jimfbleak 06:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Neotropical and Palearctic Migrants are possible alternatives but what distance qualifies as migration as opposed to local movement is arguable. Shyamal 06:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I propose Category:Transequatorial migrant birds as our top-level category, with three subcategories for the New World, Europe/Africa and Asia/Australasia. SP-KP 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether any cats will be satisfactory. The transequ will eliminate near arctic duck, goose and swan species like Pink-footed Goose and Whooper Swan, despite their being totally long distance migrants, and the subdivs will create problems for eg Northern Pintail which winters on both sides of the Atlantic with indistinguishable populations. What about the New World passerines, where only a handful of species cross the equator? Ruby-throated Hummingbird is a virtually total long-distance migrant, but like dozens of other species would be excluded. Just dump all the migration cats, its too difficult to define. jimfbleak 12:21, 1 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.

Renaming of categories after TV naming convention

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

The result of the debate was Rename all. - TexasAndroid 18:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) several hundred pages have been renamed. However several shows - listed below - have categories associated with them that also need to be renamed according to the convention. None of the items in the category have been removed or altered. If you know of any other shows please add them here. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominator --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all, except for the two which do not require disambiguation. Rename those to Category:Angel and Category:JAG, respectively. - EurekaLott 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, including Angel and JAG. They don't require disambiguation now, but JAG and Angel can refer to other things and lead to confusion in the future if it's not clearly about a TV series. Night Gyr 01:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and Night Gyr. - choster 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all same reasons.. unification is always good --J-PG 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, keeping things consistent also leads to easier/more effective searches. --SSTwinrova 20:44, 6 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:Travel writers by nationality to Category:Travel writers

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 Merge. - TexasAndroid 19:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This adds nothing but another thing to click to. It makes seeing what is available in Category:Travel writers more difficult and thereby discourages subcategorisation of that category. Merge Bhoeble 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Merge per nom. It is doubtful that any other system of subcategorisation is required in this field. CalJW 20:54, 31 March 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:Bestselling children's books

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly defined and impractical category, currently only contains Harry Potter. Could possibly be made into a list (if someone can be bothered). the wub "?!" 22:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Much too vague to be a category and it is highly unlikely that sensible all time worldwide figures can be produced for the old classics. Bhoeble 22:37, 30 March 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:Steven Seagal

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My original close of No Consensous was incorrect, as has been pointed out to me. For some reason my eyes kept skipping past the Delete opinion from Her Pegship below. Whatever. The final tally should be 4 delete to 2 keep, with one of the keeps being weak. That's a delete, not no consensous, so this changes. - TexasAndroid 14:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't categorize films by actors, nor do we create categories to duplicate "what links here"; the creator of this category, who has also reposted the CFD'd "Category:Seagaliana" a few times, added it to articles such as victim, chokehold, and Tibetan Buddhism. Useless. Postdlf 20:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please compare to Category:Hilary Duff, etc. on teh page Category:Categories by person. maybe I needed a littel guidance as to which articles go in, but now i think its streamlined. thanks for the help from User:Postdlf, User:Syrthiss and User:Halloween jack on getting it straight. this is an honest, useful contribution. --Ghetteaux 20:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hilary Duff needs to be streamlined as well, but at least that exists as a parent for her album subcategory, and eventually song subcategory. Most of the people categories are for musicians, because we categorize albums by musician, or author, because we categorize books by author, or on people who are such significant topics that they have a number of related articles about themselves and their endeavors (such as Category:George W. Bush or Category:Bill Gates). None of those apply here. Postdlf 20:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering what the logic is. As something of a fan of "navigation by way of category" I don't see any problem with having a category such as this, provided it only includes the films/shows he starred in. The category creator may be using it the wrong way, but isn't the idea fundamentally sound if there's enough relevant articles to be so categorised? If it's OK for a musician or author (and it most certainly is) why isn't it OK for an actor? --kingboyk 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been against categorizing films by actor, and a number of them have been deleted (see, e.g., Nicole Kidman films). My rationale is that while movies only have one director (exceptions such as Four Rooms and Sin City notwithstanding), they have many actors, and too many categories uselessly flood an article. Not quite as bad as what would happen if Tibetan Buddhism were categorized by every known practitioner, but still not a good result. There's furthermore no meaningful way to draw a dividing line as to when an actor's role in a film has become a defining trait of that film, in the manner that a book is defined in part by who wrote it, or an album by who recorded it. But let's see what other voters say... Postdlf 20:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, you make some excellent points. User:BD2412 makes some excellent points too so I shall abstain, but thanks for answering my question. --kingboyk 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There are some instances where the star of a group of films is about the only characteristic that people associate with those films. Seriously, how many Steven Seagal films can you identify with a director (other than the films he has directed himself). Also, he has directed a few of his own films, and since there is certainly a consensus to categorize films by director, a Steven Seagal category (or perhaps a Category:Films directed by Steven Seagal) would be appropriate for that. With the wives and the energy drink, I find that to be enough to justify this category. On the other hand, I'm biased, as Ghetteaux is like a brother to me. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you cut out the unencyclopedic lists of ingredients, Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt is only a very brief paragraph that could easily be merged into his article. Steven Seagal Enterprises (itself just a brief article) apparently only exists to market the energy drink, so I don't see the justification for that existing separately either. Which means we're left categorizing films by actor, or justifying categories for every individual who has relatives with articles. Postdlf 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • yes, it is true that BDAmbramson and I are "old school homies," but I think he knows what he is talking about. reeally, this is just a matter of personal taste, as regards use of the category feature. if you are looking for a quick way to navigate all content for a particular phenom, this a great feature. "de gustibus . . ." --Ghetteaux 12:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf Piccadilly 07:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...non disputandum". Delete per nom. Her Pegship 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:25, 5 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:Finnish demoscene musicians

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too specific; there isn't even a demoscene musicians category yet! Use Category:Demosceners until there are enough to split off a Demoscene musicians category. --Vossanova 18:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Standard subcategorisation. Every occupational group is subcategorised sooner or later. Bhoeble 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, overcategorization is just silly. it's how we end up with single-entry cats.Night Gyr 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too specific at the moment. vortex talk 11:11, 31 March 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:Paris Entertainment to Category:Paris culture

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 Merge. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barely populated; incorrect name structure; incorrect capitalisation; not a standard category type as the usual practice is to have Category:Paris culture and more detailed subcategories for things like music. delete Merchbow 18:04, 30 March 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:Paris cemeteries to Category:Cemeteries in Paris

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 Merge. - TexasAndroid 18:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match category:Cemeteries in France etc. Merchbow 17:52, 30 March 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:Chronology to Category:Timelines

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 Withdrawn. - TexasAndroid 17:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology and Timeline are the same thing so there is no need for separate categories. Timeline seems to be the term most used and in any case Category:Chronology is misnamed (should be plural) so I suggest merging them to Category:Timelines. JeffW 17:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Not the same thing at all, and the existing name is correct. Category:Chronology organises articles about specific periods of time, whereas Category:Timeslines contains timelines. CalJW 20:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The main article for a category ought to be definitive of what should be in that category and Chronology says
      • "Chronology is the science of locating events in time. An arrangement of events, from either earliest to latest or the reverse, is also called a chronology or, particularly when involving graphical elements, a timeline (for an example see Detailed logarithmic timeline)".
    • I don't seeanything there about articles being only about specific periods of time. And every page I look at under cat:Chronology is a timeline. --JeffW 23:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That last point is patent nonsense. There are thousands of pages in the category which are not timelines. CalJW 05:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are only 27 pages in the category, so I guess you're talking about pages within subcategories which wasn't what I was talking about. Just a clarification. --JeffW 05:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, the Category:History by period is the category for specific periods of time. --Sean Brunnock 13:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep category:Chronology contains all the by year album, single, film and book categories and much else. The articles in those are not timelines. Piccadilly 07:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw You are both right. There is more to this category than timelines and cat:Timelines is already a subcat. The problem is that there are timeline pages in Chronology that should be moved to the subcategory and that I can fix without bothering all of you --JeffW 14:29, 1 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:Oklahoma State Cowboys teams to Category:Oklahoma State University athletics

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per naming conventions of other college athletic teams, e.g. Category:Oklahoma Sooners or Category:Nebraska Cornhuskers. jareha (comments) 17:01, 30 March 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:Schools and colleges in Cheltenham to Category:Schools in Cheltenham

Category:Schools and colleges in Gloucester to Category:Schools in Gloucester

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. - TexasAndroid 17:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the way things are done. Schools and higher education institutions are only put in the same category at education level. (Note that in the UK there are many schools called "College", eg Eton College, but for purposes of classification they are schools. Rename Carina22 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • On second thoughts, Delete both These only exist because of the intervention of kingboyk mentioned in the nomination below, which ignored and overruled the conventional system. County level is quite detailed enough for geographical categorisation of English schools and it is all that has been done up to now with the exception of largest handful of cities - a group to which Cheltenham and Gloucester are not close to belonging. Carina22 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because they are very important subcategories of Category:Cheltenham and Category:Gloucester. Renaming is fine by me in principle, but at the current time there aren't really enough blue linked schools and colleges in Cheltenham and Gloucester to justify having seperate categories for schools in Cheltenham, colleges in Cheltenham, etc. This is all about creating self contained category groups for these towns and has nothing to do with politics so I'd be grateful if you'd tone down the personal comments, thank you. --kingboyk 16:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment. I concede that University of Gloucestershire probably doesn't belong in the schools/college category, which may have been the catalyst for this renaming proposal. I maintain however that it's not logically incorrect to include sixth form colleges and colleges of further education in the same by-town category as schools. --kingboyk 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See further down where I have withdrawn the related proposal and for comments on how it seems to be the norm to categorise by both type and location. I therefore believe the deletion proposal is without foundation; thoughts and comments awaited on whether to rename or not. --kingboyk 17:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't normal to subcategorise by the norm to categorise by both type and location regardless of the size of the location. Cheltenham and Gloucester are too small for this. Some might say they shouldn't have categories at all. Merchbow 17:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They might indeed, but they would probably not be grasping how useful categories are for navigation. --kingboyk 20:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - articles on school, colleges etc could be put under Category:Education in Gloucester or Category:Education in Cheltenham; or, failing that, directly under Category:Gloucester and Category:Cheltenham so long as those categories are not too big. They could still be sorted by type by county. TheGrappler 18:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete There was no precedent or consensus for the categorisation as I named it, although there is precedent for (and a good logical argument for) sorting by locality. I have therefore recategorised pre precedent and withdraw my opposition. I've recategorised relevant articles and speedy deleted the categories listed here per CSD G7 (User:Carina22 made a non-janitorial edit to the Cheltenham cat but also nominated it for deletion). --kingboyk 11:38, 31 March 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.

Indian political party leaders

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose spelling out two abbreviations—

Category:BJP leaders → Category:Bharatiya Janata Party leaders

Category:INC leaders → Category:Indian National Congress leaders

— to avoid any potential ambiguity.- choster 16:21, 30 March 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:Grammar schools in Gloucestershire and Category:Public schools in Gloucestershire

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 Withdrawn. - TexasAndroid 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more logical and less elitist to organise by geography. Category:Schools in Gloucestershire already exists with at present 2 geographical subcategories created by me for Cheltenham and Gloucester. --kingboyk 15:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Politically correct nonsense. Category:Public schools in England has 38 local subcategories and Category:Grammar schools in England has six. These are sure to be recreated. Emptying them in advance of the nomination was an improper attempt to manipulate the outcome of the debate. Carina22 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pardon me? I emptied them because they were mostly duplicate entries from the other categories. There are so few that putting them back in would take 5 minutes at most and I undertake to put them back if the community decides to retain them. Now, let's forget political correctness and ask, are Gloucestershire schools better organised by location or whether they are public or private (or possibly both)? --kingboyk 16:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Naturally. These cats are subcats of a consistent categorisation scheme for schools in England. No reason Gloucestershire should be any different. In fact, it makes it far more awkward for the user if it is. -- Necrothesp 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd only ask that if the community decides to keep these, that the categorisation by town be allowed to stay too. It makes far more sense to me to categorise by town than type, but I have no strong objection to having both. --kingboyk 17:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. Upon further examination, it seems to be the norm to classify by both type (Category:Schools in the United Kingdom by type) and location (Category:Schools in England, Category:Schools in Merseyside and subcategories). --kingboyk 17:36, 30 March 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:Tourism in Paris → Category:Visitor attractions in Paris

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting change as per naming style used at Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Longhair 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This was a renaming proposal but now both exist. I agree with the general principle, but tourism categories are broader than visitor attractions categories as they also contain things like hotels, airports, tourism authorities and holiday operators. I have created category:Visitor attractions in Paris as a subcategory of Category:Tourism in Paris. Merchbow 18:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia is not a travel guide, see WP:NOT. Hotels and holiday operators are not appropriate here. --JeffW 18:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per precedent and the comments of User:JeffW. --kingboyk 20:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tourism is a standard category. See Category:Tourism by country. Such categories belong in Wikipedia because tourism is a major economic sector; the incidental usefulness to tourists doesn't delegitimise them. Bhoeble 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Merchbow. Postdlf 17:01, 31 March 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:Tourism sites in Singapore → Category:Visitor attractions in Singapore

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 18:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting change as per naming style used at Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Longhair 10:21, 30 March 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:USAF Thunderbird to Category:United States Air Force Thunderbirds pilots

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 18:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changes USAF from acronym to full name, change "Thunderbird" to "Thunderbird pilot" - little more specific Nobunaga24 05:59, 30 March 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: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 Rename. - TexasAndroid 18:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow up to the nomination of category:English MPs which someone made a week ago. The category needs a name which reflects what it is for (ie not MPs who of Scottish ethnicity or sit for Scottish constituencies) and it also needs to be distinct for Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament, which is for the current Parliament, which was created a few years ago after nearly 300 years during which Scotland didn't have a parliament. Carina22 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename per nom. I had been unhappy with this name myself for some time, but just could not decide what it should be renamed to. The main issue causing my hesitancy was that being a unicameral legislature its members were both commoners (titled "Commissioners", not "MPs") and prelates and nobles. I wasn't sure if this cat was meant to hold all three types, but I suppose that the new name allows us to categorise all three of the Three Estates within it. --Mais oui! 12:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Mattbr30 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. CalJW 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, seems eminently sensible. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per Mais oui!. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:44, 6 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:American Television Stations with Logo Galleries

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to categorize articles on the basis of internal Wikipedia matters like whether they have logo galleries or not...and even if consensus here is that it's worth keeping, it would still have to be renamed for capitalization to Category:American television stations with logo galleries. I suggest deletion, but I'm willing to listen to a convincing argument otherwise. Bearcat 03:47, 30 March 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:Freeways to Category:Freeways and motorways

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Limited-access roads. - TexasAndroid 19:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change name to take into account European usage. SilkTork 00:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Freeway and motorway are the same thing - these are roads that have no traffic lights, crossings or private access. Expressway is something different. Expressway is equal to a dual carraigeway in which traffic lights, crossings and private access is allowable. It may be the case that articles within the category need sorting if they are talking about non-freeway roads. SilkTork 08:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Motorway, "Traffic lights are not permitted (except at toll booths and certain interchanges)". That's like an expressway here in Michigan, and unsurprisingly there already is the subcategory Category:Freeways and expressways in Michigan. The category title should describe what's actually in this category. --William Allen Simpson 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since there are so many terms used (highway, freeway, expressway, motorway, etc.), couldn't they all be grouped under one general term which would describe them all, e.g. "Limited access roads"? --Vossanova 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying. But the terms Freeway and Motorway mean exactly that, and are readily understood in English speaking countries. Limited access is not a term used in Europe and people would not think of a motorway. SilkTork 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After reading most of the pages, I'd say you are incorrect (at least as far as the current documentation). That's not what the pages describe. The words you are using are very UK specific, not "European" at all. It's my brother that's the civil engineer, and I can ask him this weekend, but I'm changing my vote to agree with Vossanova. --William Allen Simpson 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Freeway is USA, Canada and Australia, Motorway is nearly all other English speaking countries. Other names used, such as Autoroute or Autobahn are for non-English countries, and people from these countries when being taught English are taught either Freeway or Motorway. Limited Access is a term that is not used in the current definitions of either Freeway: "A freeway ... is a multi-lane highway (road) designed for high-speed travel by large numbers of vehicles, and having no traffic lights, stop signs, nor other regulations requiring vehicles to stop for cross-traffic." or Motorway: "A motorway (in the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and some other Commonwealth nations) is both a type of road and a classification. Motorways are highways designed to carry a large volume of traffic where a normal road would not suffice or would be unsafe, usually between cities. In the UK they are predominantly dual-carriageway roads, usually with three lanes in each direction, although four-lane and two-lane carriageways are also common, and all have grade-separated access." Though it may sound like I am opposing the suggestion, I am not. I like the idea of having a universal term to cover Freeway and Motorway. I am just not sure that Limited Access is the right term - just as I am not sure that Freeway by itself is the right term. Some expressway routes in USA and dual carraigeway routes in the UK are limited access, but do have crossings and traffic lights so do not qualify as Freeways or Motorways. We could debate various terms to cover what a Freeway/Motorway actually is and decide that Freeway is the most appropriate, which brings us back to the start. So, I'm not actually objecting to alternative terms, just expressing strong doubt that Limited access roads is a clearer term than Freeways and motorways. SilkTork 08:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps make all the various names redirect to a Category:Limited-access roads, if "limited access" is what they all share in common. (By itself, "Limited-access roads" seems a category not likely to be on the tips of people's brains.) Suggest hyphenation is used, as the category would not be addressing access roads with limitations. Regards, David Kernow 00:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per SilkTork above, "Limited-access roads" or the like too obscure. Choose one of "Freeways", "Highways", "Motorways", etc. and have all others redirect to it (and perhaps add brief explanation at top of page)...?  Regards, David Kernow 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe choosing one of the commonly used terms will just lead to more confusion and arguing. A term like "limited-access roads" is neutral because it's not commonly used, and is intended to be more of a definition than a term. --Vossanova 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if the choice became "Limited-access roads" plus subcategories "Freeways", "Highways", etc or delete, I'd vote for "Limited-access roads" plus subcategories. Regards, David Kernow 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unfortunately different terms seem to be used for a single concept; not just British-USA difference, but regionally in the USA Expressway, Throughway (Thruway), Freeway, etc. and even some in California would not regard any toll-road (Turnpike someplaces) a Freeway regardless of its limitation of access. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 5 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.


< March 28 March 30 >

March 29

Category:RENT performers

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 17:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like the South Park example below, this is much better suited for a list. If every Broadway show gets a category for the cast, every actor gets put in scores of categories of little utility. -- Samuel Wantman 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yeah, let's not do this.--Mike Selinker 03:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hawkestone 04:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kunzite 04:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's good to know who was in these Broadway hits. Probably not the best topic for a list, but seems ok as a category. The nom's point is also a gross exaggeration and is designed to play on our primal fears since few actors get to be in numerous Bway shows. Many of the actors in this category are mostly known for Rent. So I ask you, how are we supposed to find these people without the category? -- JJay 04:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • JJay, the list would facilitate finding the actors. In the Rent article, you have a heading called somthinng like "Cast" and then under it have a notation saying "Main article: List of RENT performers" and the direct the reader to the article. That would even be better since you could include info like dates they performed.--Esprit15d 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Better suited as a list. (Primal fears? sheesh)--Esprit15d 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. Monicasdude 22:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot worse as a category than as a list - as bad as classifying actors by film would be. Scranchuse 04:46, 6 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:RENT

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of an eponymous category without a purpose. All of the few articles in this category are cross linked. See the next listing as well. If every article gets a category, the categorization system looses its usefulness. -- Samuel Wantman 01:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Despite the previous nomination (which I agree with), this is a fine way to unite these articles.--Mike Selinker 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is o.k. then every single play, musical, etc... can have its own category, which makes a mess of the categorization system. The few articles in this category are already all linked to each other through the article RENT. What does the category add? Take a look the parent Category:Broadway_musicals. This is the only musical with a subcategory. Imagine that every article listed had an eponymous category. Do you think that would be a good thing? -- Samuel Wantman 07:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they all had several in depth articles, then (and only then) yes, that would be a good thing. Tons of TV shows have this kind of categorization, so it doesn't bother me that musicals would.--Mike Selinker 17:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Kunzite 04:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't appropriate to explode every article into a category. I don't think that having lots of such categories would be an improvement. CalJW 20:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until everyone realises that having categories for films and TV shows is also bad. Arniep 00:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is good stuff and we should be doing this for every major Bway show. Bway is just as good as TV or Hollywood and we need some better organization here. -- JJay 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Serves different purpose from the above nomination. This category groups articles with a similar theme (not just one random fact in common).--Esprit15d 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. Monicasdude 22:21, 5 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:Celebrities appearing in South Park

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 17:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is much better suited for a list. If every show with guest celebrities had a category, many celebrities would be cluttered with scores of categories of little utility. -- Samuel Wantman 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There already is a list, List of celebrities on South Park, which is ordered quite differently and has its own subcategories. If I ever actually wanted to sift thru this topic, I would find both the list and the category useful. Colonel Tom 01:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nom hit it on the head. BD2412 T 01:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (OR rename to something like "People appearing on South Park" (not all are celebrities, are they?)) - Very silly category. Pop culture-oriented and esoteric. Confine to a separate list without having it invade every single article it tracks. Off with its head. Downwards 01:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been working a lot on this category today, but you're right, it would do better just remaining as a list. Dylan 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletedeletedeletedelete. - EurekaLott 03:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as with recent Simpsons and Friends guest star cats. ×Meegs 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia in respect of the celebs. Hawkestone 04:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What they said. Flannel 08:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Esprit15d 19:08, 4 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.

Births by month and day

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. - TexasAndroid 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Births by month

We already have births by year; does having births by month/day add any value? I can't see that these additions were discussed. Lbbzman 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Kill this dead now, before it spreads. Wikipedia is not a horoscope.--Mike Selinker 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Hawkestone 04:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete We do not need a category this uninformative at the bottom of every article. Carina22 05:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete with extreme prejudice. We already have the dreaded Category:Living people cluttering up countless thousands of bios, and we don't need another one like it. (IMHO, we need to kill that one dead too, but that's a lost cause.) — Dale Arnett 19:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Update: I took a look at the "Living people" category, and I can understand why it's there. I may not like it, but I can see the logic behind it.[reply]
  • Comment I have added nominations to the daily categories for March to December. Fortunately after February only a few have been created for each month. Hawkestone 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the additional tagging. It got to be a bit tedious and I didn't want the tagging I performed to be mistaken for a bot. Lbbzman 03:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's more useful than births by year. It these categories go, you should delete the births section from the articles for each day, like January 1#births. That list is pov in chosing notable births. A births-by-day category would cover the birth of everyone who has a wikibio and be more useful. The more upmarket newspaper include a born on this day section, so should wiki. It's a good way to index it. I really like these cats, shame they're under-populated, but all bios can be included, so it has potential.SandShrew 22:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, by year is more than enough. Crumbsucker 09:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Categories should either be based on an achievement that makes the items encyclopedic or make it easier to find people with a particular encyclopedic attribute. This one just groups unrelated items based on an irrelevant coincidence. CalJW 15:57, 2 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:Politicians of FDP to Category:Politicians of the Free Democratic Party (Germany)

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling out and disambiguating FDP.- choster 15:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Understood; have simplified my vote accordingly. David Kernow 04:58, 2 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.

Irish-Scots

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 Huh?. - TexasAndroid 16:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC) CalJW sums it up nicely below. Looks like an AFD on the CFD page, but even then it doesnot say what page is up for deletion. - TexasAndroid 16:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly nominate the Irish-Scots page to be deleted. It is a sectarian and divisive page created by a Mayoman, named Camillus McIlhenney, who believes it is possible to be loyal to two different countries. While the writer mouths anti-sectarian bromides, he, in fact, is helping it to continue by legitimizing these fifth columnists

The page is replete with sanitizations and generalities, and is offensive and provocative in nature.

I know it was considered once for deletion, but with my additions, I request it be reviewed again.

216.194.2.210 15:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination, and incorrect procedure followed, by yet another Sock-puppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com. (Incidentally, Rms, you won't be getting a job with MI5/MI6 either, as I have no connection with Mayo whatsoever, and have a UK passport, not an Irish one.) Camillus (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake--he's a Donegalman, not a Mayoman, otherwise, everything stands!!!

  • Comment Hard to know what we're supposed to be voting on here. You may wish to read the procedures and redo this one. You may want articles for deletion rather than this page. CalJW 21:01, 31 March 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:Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 16:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a series of merges, this category is empty and now redundant. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no need for this now, Rlevse 21:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC), Scouting Project Coordinator[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Esprit15d 19:09, 4 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:Anti-war people to Category:Anti-war activists

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion before (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 18). That didn't get through, but I think the closing admin made the wrong decision as there was a consensus to switch to the less biased category:Anti-war activists after that suggestion was made. The current category name takes these people's own assessment of their activities at face value; others might see category:People who perpetuate war by making the world a more comfortable place for military dictators as a fitting label, but that is also too biased to use. The current term is used a lot in the liberal media and academia, but neither the liberal media nor academia observe Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The current proposal is in line with the names of the parent categories category:Anti-war and Category:Activists.Rename. Bhoeble 12:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename. Seems a lot more definitive.--Mike Selinker 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. ×Meegs 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Not per nom - I disagree that anti-war is POV, see the discussion on its page. However, anti-war people is probably too broad; Wikipedia shouldn't be categorizing people on their opinions, at least not widely-shared opinions, only on their actions. anti-war activist better limits out people not known primarily for anti-war work. Kalkin 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per nom. —Encephalon 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as I voted before. --JeffW 22:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion. Anti-which-war? all war? any war? and when? some of the purported inclusions demonstrate the POV: Jane Fonda (anti-US-Vietnam War, but where did she stand on the Vietnam-France War that achieved Vietnam's independence? That was a good war against colonialism as she told her North Vietnamese hosts.); George McGovern, was it his anti-war activism that led him to, as his article states, "volunteer[] for the United States Army Air Forces during World War II and serve[] as a B-24 Liberator bomber pilot in the Fifteenth Air Force, flying 35 missions over enemy territory from bases in North Africa and later Italy, often against heavy anti-aircraft artillery. McGovern was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross; his wartime exploits were later at the center of Stephen Ambrose's book The Wild Blue." If that's "anti-war" I should worry that Cindy Sheehan will be flying B-52s before long. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, if you brought in a random person off the street and directed them to the page, I doubt they would think it was biased in any way. They're just called "activists", no reason to be extra-PC about it. --Liface 23:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if anti-war is not POV then so is pro-war, right? If you think that there is an objective criteria for including someone as "anti-" something, then you can do likewise for "pro-". Take George McGovern, someone who volunteered for the military and flew bombing missions dropping bombs on who knows whom seems to be a clear case of a pro-war person, so that category gets him right? The random person off the street (in the US, perhaps not in Saudi Arabia) would find an affirmative statement in the Jesus of Nazareth article stating that Jesus is the only begotten son of God as not POV, too, that's not the measure of POV, however. Carlossuarez46 16:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, but we'll never get deletion through, so all we can do is vote to rename CalJW 21:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, this was the emerging consensus the last time around. -- Samuel Wantman 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "Anti-war people" suggests people with a general opinion, "Anti-war activists" suggests people who are well-known for public speeches and activity. --Vossanova 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I was the one whose idea it was to rename in the first place, and I think this muddied the waters a bit regarding the forming of a consensus, which was kind of split between delete, keep as-is, and rename. I'm glad to see it nominated specifically for renaming. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Carlossuarez46. With regard to CalJW's comment, a rename would make this less awful, but it would also decrease the chance of it ever being deleted as ahistorical nonsense. Valiantis 18:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I agree that "anti-war people" is too broad and less neutral than "anti-war activists". Andrea Parton 01:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Emphasizes that opposing war is important for these people. GCarty 16:51, 4 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:Makedones

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 16:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted for two reasons. Firstly, Makedone is not an English term. Secondly, this category was being used to categorise poeple born in the Greek provinces of Macedonia. More appropriate categories, namely Category:Natives of Central Macedonia, Category:Natives of East Macedonia and Thrace, and Category:Natives of West Macedonia have been created in its place. Damac 09:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 12:09, 29 March 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:Cal Bears

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 16:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as I created the category, accidentally duplicating Category:University of California, Berkeley athletics. jareha (comments) 05:49, 29 March 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:Geelong attractions → Category:Visitor attractions in Geelong

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting change as per naming style used at Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Longhair 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as per above. Colonel Tom 00:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Hawkestone 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Should certainly be in the "of" form. CalJW 21:03, 31 March 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:Melbourne attractions → Category:Visitor attractions in Melbourne

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting change as per naming style used at Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Longhair 04:09, 29 March 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:Nanjing attractions → Category:Visitor attractions in Nanjing

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting change as per naming style used at Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Longhair 04:12, 29 March 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:Cindy Sheehan

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category has two whole pages in it. Completely unnecessary. Fightindaman 04:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Now has 5 articles. Bhoeble 12:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMO, the number of articles is irrelevant. I don't agree that categorizing Cindy Sheehan articles is unnecessary.
  • Leaning toward Delete. In general, I think eponymous categories should be avoided unless there are more than a dozen or so related articles. If all the articles are cross-linked to the main article in a prominent way there is no need for the category. I think that is the case in this example. Does anyone know the precedent here at cfd for eponymous categories with small numbers of articles? I think the standard should be: "Eponymous categories should be avoided unless there are more than a dozen links in the See also section." If we reach a consensus about this here, a guideline can be added to Wikipedia:Categorization. -- Samuel Wantman 00:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm undecided. Generally these should only be kept when the person is very prominent (in a lasting way) or has many more than 5 articles, but when one of the five is a break out article that changes things somewhat. No vote. CalJW 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't imagine there are enough articles to justify keeping a category about one person around. She is one in a long line, and is the type of person who is much better as a member of a category than the subject of one. Everything that could possibly be under this would be much better suited in other categories like Iraq, Anti-Bush, war protesters, etc. It is like having a Jane fonda category. Flannel 08:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not every article gets its own category. Carlossuarez46 20:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of this is, or should be, covered by links from the main article. One wonders how we would react to this category in 5 years. I suspect that a common response then whould be Cindy who? If that's the case, then we don't need a category for this individual. Vegaswikian 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The existence of several articles is the result of her being American and contemporary, not of any real importance. Carina22 01:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just make sure the other 4 articles are linked from her page. Scranchuse 04:47, 6 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:Ziyaret

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 16:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on Talk:Ziyarat. A new category Category:Ziyarat has been created, and articles have been moved. deeptrivia (talk) 02:21, 29 March 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:Webcomics by country

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

The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult and possibly dubious sorting. It is much easier to sort by language. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Difficult? A webcomic is either identified with a country or not. Possibly dubious (but possibly not), how? Sorting by language does not replace sorting by country. —Michael Z. 2006-03-29 03:30 Z
  • Keep per Mzajac above. --DDima (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sort the artists by country if they have articles, but the comics themselves are better sorted by language. There are only a few webcomics that are distinctively associated with a specific country. Most have a Springfieldesque feel to them. And what about cases like Megatokyo? It's strongly associated with Japan, but it's written in English by an author who lives in Michigan. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: forgot to mention in my initial post. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, by language/nationality is superior, by country is undesirable for most culture-type topics. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What is "language/nationality"?—these are two different things. The case in point is Salo in Space, a webcomic from Ukraine on Ukrainian cultural and historical themes, but written in the Russian language. —Michael Z. 2006-04-02 18:18 Z
  • Keep - while not all webcomics are bound by the culture of their creator's country of residence, some certainly are. This seems to have useful potential to me. Colonel Tom 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The web makes country boundaries less relevant, not irrelevant. CalJW 21:06, 31 March 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:Webcomics of Ukraine

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - TexasAndroid 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted along with #Category:Webcomics by country, above. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:47, 29 March 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.
< March 27 March 29 >

March 28

Category:United States public land law → Category:United States federal public land legislation

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 19:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23 of the 24 current articles in this category are legislation. The other one can easily be recategorized. —Markles 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's likely that eventually articles on court cases interpreting public land laws will be written and categorized, as will articles on state public land laws. The current category would encompass those, along the lines of all the other U.S. area of law categories; make the federal legislation one a subcategory, if you must. Postdlf 02:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Law is broader than legislation, and overcategorization is not necessary. Gene Nygaard 03:10, 29 March 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:Dorama → Category:Japanese television dramas

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 19:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fans generally use this Engrish term to describe Japanese television dramas. Someone renamed the main article several weeks ago. This would bring the category in line with Category:South Korean television drama and others Category:Drama_television_series_by_nationality --Kunzite 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional keep rename Abstain if both descriptions identify the same type of program(me). David Kernow 03:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' eh? ドラマ/dorama is just the transliteration of Drama from English to Japanese and back again. They are both used to describe the same program. It's better to have the meaningful English in this case.--Kunzite 13:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; I meant "Conditional rename". Suggest mention of / link to Dorama made at top of renamed category. Thanks for the insight re the Japanese!  Regards, David Kernow 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Terms which are meaningful in standard English should be used where possible. Bhoeble 12:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator and Bhoeble. --NormanEinstein 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP category contains audio and radio dramas from Japan. It is also the common name in English for Japanese dramas. Like anime that identifies Japanese cartoons, dorama specifically identifies Japanese audio/radio/TV dramas. 132.205.45.148 19:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Google test shows "Japanese Drama" is more popular than "Dorama" in English. ドラマ means anything drama in Japanese. Dorama, in English, usually only refers to Japanese Television dramas. "Drama CD / Audio Drama / Radio Drama / Sound Drama" are all used for the audio format. ("Dorama CD", for instance, has 658 articles in google, where as anime "drama CD", a more restricted search, has 248,000.) Would English wiki use "Uesutan" for Japanese programs that take place in the American West? Likely not.
Google test results:
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 258,000 English pages for "japanese drama". (0.32 seconds)
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 141,000 English pages for "dorama". (0.34 seconds)
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 52,700 English pages for "jdrama". (0.34 seconds)
Now for Audio drama stuff. I had originally included this argument here, but I edited it out. I translated two or three articles over from Japanese wikipedia on Japanese Audio Dramas. I incorporated that material into the Audio drama article. I've solved the problem of having an "audio drama" article in the category by removing the pittifully small, ultimately useless, "list of Anime audio dramas" from the category. If anyone creates any further articles on audio dramas or incorportated any information on audio drama cds into anime, manga, or other Japanese popular culture articles, the category can be created. Audio dramas get almost no attention in the West because they're hard to translate and have no visual component. Usually Japanese Audio dramas are a promotional item, used mostly for merchandising, or a way to test market a possible anime series, or as a vehicle for seiyuu careers... --Kunzite 01:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you are shrinking the category down instead of subcategorizing it. So instead of any Japanese Drama, you are restricting it to only Japanese TV dramas. Why don't you just build a subcategory for the tele-dorama, and leave this as a supercategory? You've just lost information that was properly categorized before, since this category is at present still used for all Japanese dramas. In case you've forgotten, GTO is a film, manga, anime, TV-dorama, and audio-dorama. 132.205.44.134 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the point. This is a badly named category that needs correction. A super-category and a sub-category can be added later when there is enough content to warrant. And no information has been lost. --Kunzite 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A direct rename would end up with Japanese drama not Japanese television drama 132.205.45.110 20:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the word DORAMA is mainly used for TV dramas, the majority of articles in the category are TV related. The one that was not can be easily re-removed. --Kunzite 04:30, 1 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:Columbusites to Category:People from Columbus, Ohio

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent the first 25 years of my life in Columbus and don't believe I've ever seen or heard the term "Columbusite" until seeing it here; I think a good portion of these ridiculous demonym forms were simply made up for these categories, rather than reflecting actual usage.[6] Perhaps more importantly, there are over two dozen other places in the United States called "Columbus"; this is therefore ambiguous, no matter how much more well known Columbus, Ohio is than the others. Postdlf 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep *Rename the term 'Columbusites' is used to refer to people from the other American cities named Columbus and these cities have large enough populations Mayumashu 02:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC) i propose a different rename, Category:Columbusites (Ohio) Mayumashu 03:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. David Kernow 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. --NormanEinstein 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per my comment on Glaswegians below, if this is a recognisable and verifiable demonym, it should be kept. I am not knowledgeable enough on the area to offer an opinion on this one yet. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but I have to observe that this was originally People from Columbus. There seems to be a recategorization craze going on that might be better put to writing new contributions. David 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I'm from Columbus originally too, and I have never heard the word Columbusite before Nobunaga24 05:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 04:02, 1 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:Glaswegians to Category:People from Glasgow, Scotland

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - TexasAndroid 19:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only will most people not know what the hell a "Glaswegian" is, but there are at least ten Glasgows in the world (see Glasgow (disambiguation)). These cutesy demonym forms are awkward, inobvious, and ambiguous. Postdlf 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless Glasgow is to be moved to Glasgow, Scotland as well. -choster 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glasgow clearly has a disambiguation link at the top of the page for other meanings, and it's pretty obvious what the article is when you see it. None of that applies to a category when it appears as a bare tag at the bottom of an article; the same disambiguation principles simply don't apply. Postdlf 00:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the standard (and indeed Standard English) term for people from Glasgow. There is nothing cutesy about it. We should not assume people's ignorance. (In any case, if someone sees the category "Glaswegians" at the bottom of an article page and does not know what it means, they are only one click away from finding out the meaning as it is defined on the category page. This is the basic principle behind having an encyclopedia with hyperlinks!) Valiantis 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename unless Glasgow, Scotland is moved to Glaswegia. Gene Nygaard 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless Norway is moved to Norwegia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Glasgow in Scotland is by far the most prominent of cities named Glasgow and use of this demonym is standard (outside the U.S.). Mayumashu 02:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is standard to a minority of native speakers of English, and confusing as hell to the rest of them and even more so to non-native speakers. There is an unconfusing alternative. Gene Nygaard 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we were to follow your logic then all category names that use American standards would have to be renamed, as American English speakers constitute a minority of all native English speakers. I presume you are not suggesting this. Valiantis 15:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't help a bit; where it is likely to be confusing is when you see it listed as a subcategory of its parent categories, or when you see it in the list of categories at the bottom of an article about some person who is listed in that category, and category redirects are not a viable alternative in the latter case--they don't work very well. Gene Nygaard 03:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, when I come across what you describe, I simply try searching Wikipedia for the term I don't recognize or understand in another tab or window (or, if needs be, Wiktionary, the rest of the internet or a book). From my experience using Wikipedia thus far, I infer this is what most people do. I – and I believe most people – prefer this kind of appraoch as it means the names of categories, articles, etc aren't overly compromised and I/we also learn something before I/we have even begun exploring the category's contents / begun reading the article / etc. Regards, David Kernow 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I simply do not understand the problem here. If readers see Category:Glaswegians listed as a subcategory or at the bottom of an article and do not recognise the term, they are one click away from enlightenment. Moreover, it is WP practice that we use British English or American English terms dependent on the subject matter. The subject-matter here is British, therefore the standard British English term should be used. A Google search on "Glaswegian" throws up over 400,000 hits so the term is hardly obscure; Google searches on "people from Glasgow", "person from Glasgow", "man from Glasgow", "woman from Glasgow" etc. throw up around 600 hits each and are demonstrably therefore not the normal way of referring to a native of the city. Valiantis 15:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is less whether Glaswegian is the actual term for someone from Glasgow (one of the few demonym forms where it is), but whether the disadvantages of the demonym form (ambiguous, unclear referent, most communities lack actual demonym forms) when there is a simple alternative, and one that should be made standard across all such categories. I don't think your google search terms are relevant (try this and this instead, if you must), and it's certainly not rare in any form of English to say "X is from Y" instead of "X is Yian." Postdlf 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, your Google search terms ("is from Glasgow" and "came from Glasgow") each produce less than 1,000 hits, so this evidence seems to support my position not yours. You may have a point about a general standardisation, but that is not what you proposed. If you want to propose a general standardisation then do so (and I will oppose that too but at least we will be discussing the same thing). FWIW, the form "People from Glasgow, Scotland" (with or without the unnecessary "Scotland") is incorrect in any case as for British places the form "Natives of..." is used a standard (see Category:Scottish people by council area and Category:English people by county). Again FWIW, I think most of the demonyms in, for example, Category:People by British city could perhaps do with renaming to a less obscure form (though I don't feel this strongly), but Glaswegian is one that stands in its own right due to its ubiquity of use. Valiantis 18:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "People from City/Country" is a good standard to adhere to because it eliminates confusion regarding the proper term for people from that locale. The category should definitely mention that the correct term for people from Glasgow is Glaswegians, but for categorization purposes this should be renamed. --NormanEinstein 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the standard descriptor for someone from Glasgow. --Mais oui! 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since we have categories for Aberdonians and Dundonians, as well as Leicesterians, Liverpudlians and Mancunians see Category:People by British city. There may be an arguement that all of these are not obvious to someone not familiar with the UK and so all should be 'people from...' (I'm not sure) but there is not reason to single Glasgow out. --Doc ask? 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there isn't; those should be renamed too...this just happened to be the one I picked because I saw it pop up on an article I wrote. Postdlf 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There may be many other Glasgow's in the world but there is a pre-eminent Glasgow, and it's citizens are known as Glaswegians. There is a Moscow in Scotland, but it is not the Moscow, and it's citizens are not known as Muscovites. As Valiantis points out, the confused reader is only a click away from enlightenment. The same argument for deletion renaming of this category could be applied to Category:Bakersfieldians, or Category:Mobilians, or Category:Yonkersites, or .... ad infinitum. That way lies madness. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was for renaming, not deletion; those should be renamed too. Perhaps I should have done a mass listing for renaming all of them at once? Postdlf 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, my mistake, I fully understand that it was for renaming but, alas, my brain was not fully engaged with my two typing fingers :-( The examples I gave were just but 3 random samples plucked from Category:American_people_by_city. There are probably several thousands of similar examples across Wikipedia covering many, many countries. My point was, if this argument applies to Glaswegians it should apply to all the others, therein lies the ensuing madness. For that reason I say that if a recognisable and verifiable local demonym exists, then it is valid and should be kept. After all, it can only enlighten us all, which is the main purpose of this fine endeavour. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Glaswegian aside, even assuming that the other demonym forms are verifiable as coming from actual usage (which I doubt; see "Columbusite" above), that still leaves the problem of ambiguity. Postdlf 18:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • See my Columbusites post above. The current Category:Glaswegians page states: This page contain the biographies of Glaswegians: people who are from Glasgow, Scotland. I'm not sure where there can be any ambiguity. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The ambiguity is in the category name, which applies to anyone from any Glasgow in the world. A category description can't cure that because it doesn't show up wherever the category name does (at the bottom of articles, as subcategories). That's the whole reason why abbreviations and acronyms have been disfavored in category names and systematically removed; sure, you could click through to find out what it means, but the category name itself has to be clear and unambiguous. Postdlf 21:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Weegies, sorry "Glaswegians". --MacRusgail 18:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I knew I was a Glaswegian in Primary One (age 4). (I may have regretted it since, but that's life.) It is the standard term and it is not the place of Wikipedia to re-invent some fictive "ought" to replace the "is". AllyD 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. there seems to be a usage difference here between Commonwealth Englishes and American English. demonyms exist in both but Americans seem not to use them, with some notable exceptions both with the demonyms themselves (New Yorkers, Chicagoans) and with individuals and they re wish to use them. outside of the States people seem to generally prefer them but again with some exceptions, such as the cities of Leeds and Birmingham, although they seem to have common colloquial terms but not standard formal ones. Mayumashu 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as people from Glasgow are Glaswegians, and other cities use a similar format. Mattbr30 22:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I won't belabor the discussion. — Dale Arnett 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but what's the adjective for people from Edinburgh? I am one and I don't even know. Edinburghers? Deizio 11:13, 1 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:Autonomous Oblasts of Russia to Category:Autonomous oblasts of Russia

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 Merge. - TexasAndroid 16:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two duplicate categories. I think the lowercase should stay because it refers to autonomous oblasts as a whole. (The fact that there's only one autonomous oblast in Russia complicates the things, though :) Conscious 13:05, 28 March 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:U.S. House of Representatives elections to Category:United States House of Representatives elections

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 moved to speedy renames. Syrthiss 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. -> United States. —Markles 11:48, 28 March 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:Roman emperors (murdered, predecessor also murdered)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name is awkward and the point is too detailed to be made by a category. Delete Hawkestone 10:27, 28 March 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:Historic houses in Virginia to Category:Houses in Virginia

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 16:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the other state-level subcategories of Category:Houses in the United States. - EurekaLott 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this include the House of Delegates? Gene Nygaard 09:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. No obvious threshold as to when a house becomes "historic," and we're not going to have articles on houses not worth remembering and documenting anyway. "Historic" may be seen as an analog to "famous X from the past" or "notable X from the past" in that sense. Postdlf 16:08, 29 March 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:NWFP Politicians to Category:NWFP politicians

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:North-West Frontier Province politicians. - TexasAndroid 16:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories (differing in capitilization). -- JLaTondre 02:43, 28 March 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:Unix successors

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 16:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this one marked as {{delete}} and decided to move it here. The reason given on the talk page is that this is much better covered by the UNIX category. No vote — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:48, 28 March 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: Software engineering disasters

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

The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above, came across it tagged as a speedy. Reason given is that it's POV. No vote — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. What else would you call software mistakes that cost multiple millions of dollars or outright kill people? McNeight 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my reasons posted on the cat-talk page. Atlant 13:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly POV, requires judgement. Is Windows a software engineering disaster, because of the billions poured into it, and the people killed when it fails (in hospitals &etc)? Or is it a success because it is the most used OS in the world? --maru (talk) contribs 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and not the same kind of thing as the other disaster subcategories. Bhoeble 00:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and suggest Category:Disasters attributed to software or the like created instead...? David Kernow 03:40, 29 March 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: Software engineering success stories

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 16:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. No vote — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Category was speedied by an admin based on the {{delete}} tag that an anon had placed there prior to Lara Scudder changing it to a cfd tag. At the moment, the only item in the category is Linux. Please consider this discussion as if the category did exist and if its decided to be a keep then I will undelete the cat. Thanks! --Syrthiss 16:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the admin spoken of, so obviously I think this should be killed. Incredibly vage criteria for success or failure (see my vote on the disaster category), and impossibly broad or ridiculously narrow. --maru (talk) contribs 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. David Kernow 03:40, 29 March 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: Greek poker 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 Keep. - TexasAndroid 16:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was marked speedy because it only had two articles in it. No vote — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. A category exists for each nation's poker players (Category:Poker players) - I see no reason why this particular one should be singled out. Essexmutant 08:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Essexmutant Hawkestone 10:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional oppose. "UK Poker players", "USA Poker players". et al are viable categories. If the ability to search by boolean cross-categories is implemented, then I would recommend deletion. But as there is no current way to search "Greek nationals" ∩ "Poker players", then I recommend keeping the current category, sparse as it is. — MSchmahl 11:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actualy there is, and acording to the Cat scan tool there are no articles in both Greek people and Poker players that are not already in this category (when scannign at a depth of 3 subcats). --Sherool (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Absolutely keep. All competitors are categorized this way, and number of articles isn't a reason to delete such categories.--Mike Selinker 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No sense in a nom like this. Players are subcategorized by nationality rather than alphabet, which is much more useful to users. This is like nominating "X" for deleting because not many people have names starting with "X". 2005 22:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. David Kernow 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. — Dale Arnett 04:02, 1 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.



Unresolved after seven days

See /unresolved and /unresolved/Ongoing and Wikipedia:Unresolved after seven days.

Cleanup overhead

Shortcuts

If process guidelines are met, move categories to the appropriate section here to prepare to delete.

Before deleting a category, please ensure that it is empty.

Please help keep this page clean! Listings that have already been dealt with need to be removed quickly.

List is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure – updated by AnomieBOT.
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.

Discussions awaiting closure

Closing procedure

Bot

JJMC89 bot III (talk · contribs · logs) processes the requests on this page. It currently checks for new work at 17 and 47 minutes past the hour.

Process
  • The working page must have full (sysop) edit protection.
  • The bot can only recategorize when a page is categorized using category syntax ([[Category:Foo]]).
  1. The bot iterates over each section of the page using the section header to determine the mode.
  2. Within a section the bot iterates over each line if wikitext.
    • Each line consists of three parts: prefix, wikilinks/templates, and suffix. Everything else is ignored.
      • All wikilinks on the line
        • They must be to a CfD page or a category. The bot will not process the rest of the section if any other wikilink is found.
        • If a CfD link does not contain a section, the bot will attempt figure it out based on the linked CfD page.
      • {{c}}, {{cl}}, and {{lc}} can be used to link categories. All other templates are ignored.
      • The prefix is the plain text at the beginning of the line.
        • The prefix on a line with a CfD link applies to all lines until the next CfD link.
        • If the prefix contains "NO BOT" (case sensitive), the bot will not queue it. (These should be placed on WP:CFD/W/M instead.)
      • The suffix is the plain text at the end of the line.
        • The suffix on a line with a CfD link applies to all lines until the next CfD link unless that line has a suffix.
  3. If a CfD link was found and there is at least one category link is on the line, the bot will queue the request.
  4. After queueing the entire page, the bot will remove any conflicting requests and requests involving disambiguation categories from the queue and then check and process the remaining requests.

Bot work

If the category needs to be split among multiple destination categories, requires template editing, or requires editing the documentation subpage of templates, or any other special circumstances that require manual review, list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual rather than here.

If a category has over 5,000 members to be updated by bot, list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large.

Speedy moves

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy


Move

Bot information
  • The bot moves the category to a target category without leaving a redirect and removes the {{cfx full}} template.
  • If the prefix contains "REDIRECT" (case sensitive), then the bot will leave a redirect.
  • Checks:
    • The current category cannot be the move target.
    • There must be one move target on the line.
    • If the current category is a redirect, then the target must exist.
    • The target must not be a redirect.
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 6
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 7
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 15
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 8
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 9
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 1
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 14


Merge then delete

Bot information
  • The bot merges the category to one or more target categories and deletes the empty category.
  • If the prefix contains "REDIRECT" (case sensitive) and there is a single merge target, then the bot will redirect the category to the target using {{category redirect}} instead of deleting it.
  • Checks:
    • The current category cannot be a merge target.
    • There must be one or more merge targets on the line.
    • All merge targets must exist and not be a redirect.
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy


Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 5
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 7
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 8
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 8
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 9
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 30
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 14


Empty then delete

Bot information
  • The bot removes the category from all pages and deletes the empty category.
  • Checks:
    • There must be one category on the line.
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 11
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 9
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 6
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 7
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 9
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 10
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 10
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 11
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 29
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 14


Retain

Bot information
  • The bot removes the {{cfx full}} template and adds {{old CfD}} to the talk page.
  • If the suffix does not contain the discussion action and result for {{old CfD}}, the bot will attempt figure them out based on the linked CfD page.
  • On the working page, the action/result must be one of the following.
    • no consensus (for|to) action
    • not action
    • keep (The action is assumed to be delete.)
  • Checks:
    • There must be one category on the line.
    • There must be an action and result (on the line or bot detected).
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 11 - keep


Old by month categories with entries

This section lists old maintenance categories that should be empty but are not. This can result from reversions of pages, incomplete nominations, bot errors, backlogs or pending manual work.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=47016357"