Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 29
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
August 29
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to United States state birds --Kbdank71 16:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency with other, similar, categories. TexasAndroid 18:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Defer to Wikipedia:Category titles. Absolutely do not use abbreviation "U.S.". siafu 19:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this were brand new, I might agree, but with the exception of birds and fossils, everything in Category:U.S. state insignia already uses the form U.S. state widgets. Unless Wikipedia is going to soon do a mass renaming of all of these to the form State wisgets of the United States, the proposed renaming is the better one for now. Caerwine 19:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are going to do this, we can do it correctly now. As I see it, we have four other categories, and a number of lists to be moved. The lists are easy, as they just require a Page Move each. The categories are more tricky, but that's one reason to put them here: to get bot and manpower support in moves. So I'm proposing to change my Rename suggestion to
Category:United States state birdsto be standard, and I'll submit the other four at once. TexasAndroid 21:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- RENAME it has to be renamed now. Whether the abbrieviation is correct or not is beside the current issue. "State" is not a US specific term. If it needs to be renamed again in the future, so be it, but right now, it is factually incorrect. 132.205.3.20 19:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:United States state birds. Wikipedia:Category titles has pretty much decided that abbrevs are to be done away with. There is little question in this particular case over whether to use "American" or "United States", I would think. -Splash 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:State birds of the United States if we must avoid abbreviations. United States state is just too awkward a phrasing to be used. Caerwine 07:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agrees. This works better. I support this option. TexasAndroid 11:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:State birds of the United States per Caerwine. Hiding talk 08:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to "United States state birds". James F. (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:State birds of the United States. Hall Monitor 17:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:State birds of the United States. -choster 16:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: as of now there is no consensus as to what to rename to. If I could make a suggestion, the US State Widgets (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 29) was decided to go with the form of "United States state foo", and not "State foo of the United States". For consistency, we should probably do the same here. --Kbdank71 14:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm OK either way. But you're right, it makes sense to go with the same way the other four went. TexasAndroid 18:29, 6 September 2005 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 14:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Natives of Cornwall implies only people who were born in Cornwall. People such as Daphne du Maurier (already in the category) and William Bligh (on the List of Cornish people) were not born in Cornwall, but are closely associated with the county, either because they spent most of their lives there, self-identified as being Cornish, or came from Cornish families. The new category title would allow people like this to be properly categorised. -- Necrothesp 22:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ethnic subcats. I'll go as far as England, Scotland, Wales and NI, but no farther. -Splash 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems a bit extreme, considering there are many categories already in existence for people from individual cities, let alone counties that have as much of an individual identity as Cornwall. -- Necrothesp 00:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also seems extreme referring to England, Scotland and Wales as ethnic subcats when they are clearly countries. Hiding talk 10:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't really mean that those ones were ethnic subcats; just that Cornwall is. The reason I'll go as far as England, Scotland, Wales and NI is because they are countries, even if they are part of a single(-ish) State. -Splash 03:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people believe Cornwall is also a country. Note even Northern Ireland's status as a country is unclear, which is why I did not list it myself. Note there is a Cornish language. More so, though, I believe if the United States can categorise people by state then it is equally acceptable to allow categorisation of people by county in the United Kingdom. I do not see how categorising people at a county level is instigating an ethnic breakdown. Hiding talk 09:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't really mean that those ones were ethnic subcats; just that Cornwall is. The reason I'll go as far as England, Scotland, Wales and NI is because they are countries, even if they are part of a single(-ish) State. -Splash 03:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also seems extreme referring to England, Scotland and Wales as ethnic subcats when they are clearly countries. Hiding talk 10:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems a bit extreme, considering there are many categories already in existence for people from individual cities, let alone counties that have as much of an individual identity as Cornwall. -- Necrothesp 00:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most certainly, Cornwall has a strong and fiercely defended identity. The rename I am unsure of however, perhaps Category:People of Cornwall might be better, it doesn't so strongly imply they are native, and Cornish people to me still implies they are born there to me. Hiding talk 08:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC) Rename talk 10:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC) Category:People from Cornwall, given Category:People by U.S. state uses predominately people from talk 10:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move Cornish people who're not native to Cornwall to category:Cornish people. — Instantnood 13:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It's the standard term for such categories in the UK. It is possible to be a native of Cornwall without having any Cornish ethnicity. CalJW 03:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per CalJW. Hiding talk 08:11, 2 September 2005 (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.
State widgits
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:U.S. state flags to Category:United States state flags
- Category:U.S. state insignia by state to Category:United States state insignia
- Category:U.S. state seals to Category:United States state seals
- Category:U.S. state songs to Category:United States state songs
As is discussed in the State Birds discussion below, these are non-standard. Preference is to avoid abbreviations on category names. Discussion on State Birds was whether to follow normal preferences, or be consistant. I say let's move them all to where they should be, and be done with it. Then, both concerns are satisfied. :) -- TexasAndroid 21:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all, but wonder about the state-songs one continuing to exist at all. Wikipedia:Category titles has largely determined that abbrevs should be avoided in this kind of case. -Splash 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If they must be renamed, do it to Category:State flags of the United States etc. United States state simply is not euphonious. Caerwine Caerwine 07:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. I'm up for the alternate naming. That gives us:
Category:U.S. state flags to Category:State flags of the United StatesCategory:U.S. state insignia by state to Category:State insignia of the United StatesCategory:U.S. state seals to Category:State seals of the United StatesCategory:U.S. state songs to Category:State songs of the United StatesTexasAndroid 11:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Retracting, so we don't get No Conscensous. TexasAndroid 14:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as suggested by the original poster - "State seals of the United Kingdom", for example, would refer to the seals of state of the country, not the seals of state of the states of the country, so "State seals of the United States" is highly confusing. James F. (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 18:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but this should be remade once we have articles for Sodium stannate (common ingredient in hair dye), Potassium stannate (used in plating), Nickel stannate, Cadmium stannate, etc. siafu 18:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and no need to remake later. Redundant with populated category Tin compounds Caerwine 20:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. James F. (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 14:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At the best the name is confusing. I had to look through several of the articles to figure out what the category is for. Since it only has three articles, I would suggest moving them up to Category:Stargate. TexasAndroid 18:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 18:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- yup. i made it in sillyness. so DELETE. but not to be moved up to 'Stargate', because that category is so about the tv series, which the SG-3000 is not about.--alfakim 19:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- According to the article, SG-3000 is about the tv series. The category Stargate is for both the TV series and the movie/movie-books. 132.205.3.20 19:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do not want them merged up, please suggest a viable alternative. The articles need to live *somewhere* Stargate related. TexasAndroid 21:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete ∞Who?¿? 19:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- MERGE' with Category:Stargate 132.205.3.20 19:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as suggested. --Kbdank71 13:34, 4 September 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 17:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:26, 29 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 17:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I just populated it based on Taba'een. siafu 23:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Changing my vote. saifu did a good job populating and parenting it. Now in use, no need to delete. TexasAndroid 00:56, 30 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 17:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No articles to populate with. siafu 23:33, 29 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 17:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't indicate any particular Tarlo and anyway the Tarlos with articles are unlikely to require categories. - choster 16:55, 1 September 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 17:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:36, 29 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 17:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Empty, vague. siafu 23:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per siafu. - choster 21:50, 30 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 16:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Category is redundant, see Category:DC Comics locations. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:45, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 16:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redundant with Category:Television stations in Spain. siafu 23:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with redundancy. I was going to say keep and populate, but there's no need. -Splash 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse rename, "television channels" is more common. James F. (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stations" is the term used on wikipedia, per Category:Television stations and Television station. Television channel is just a redirect. siafu 12:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, both terms are used. Spain isn't a U.S. colony. CalJW 03:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stations" is the term used on wikipedia, per Category:Television stations and Television station. Television channel is just a redirect. siafu 12:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. --Kbdank71 13:28, 4 September 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. (I know some of these could be speedied, but I'm tossing them up via CFD instead in case someone can make them useful instead. I see no rush to remove them.) TexasAndroid 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and populate. I'm not very familiar with Hinduism, but there is Category:Mosques in India, so this one must surely have articles that could populate it. siafu 23:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Category:Hindu_temples should suffice. As the great majority of Hindus, and logically the great majority of Hindu temples, will be located in India, I hold that renaming to Hindu temples in India á la Category:Hindu temples in Cambodia is overcategorization. For an analogue compare at Category:Shinto shrines. - choster 01:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT That's not a valid analog. Shintoism is more or less Japan only. Hinduism spread across South-East asia and was the major religion before being displaced by Islam. 132.205.44.43 19:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, but that is besides the point. It remains that the contents of Category:Hindu temples are overwhelmingly Indian. - choster 21:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT That's not a valid analog. Shintoism is more or less Japan only. Hinduism spread across South-East asia and was the major religion before being displaced by Islam. 132.205.44.43 19:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Empty and vague; are they Hindu temples? Buddhist temples? some other religion? If any of those would be useful, create and name them as such (which would also match most other categories for temples in specific countries). --Mairi 01:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and populate. It's not vague. It is about temples in a country, not temples of a religion. -- Reinyday, 00:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- But unlike, for instance, gurdwaras, the English word "temple" is used for the houses of many faiths, and a Buddhist temple has as much to do with a Hindu temple as it does a synagogue. A better countrywide umbrella would be Category:Religious buildings in India. -choster 17:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Submitter here. If one or another of the people suggesting "Keep and populate" would please do the populating, and give it a valid parent, I would gladly change my vote to Keep as well. As long as it stays empty and parentless, my vote stays Delete.
- Delete. Empty. --Kbdank71 13:27, 4 September 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 14:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:49, 29 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 14:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redundant with the populated category Telluride minerals Caerwine 19:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And with category Tellurium compounds as well. Caerwine 19:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Vsmith 02:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Thought it was for alumni of Telluride House. - choster 17:02, 1 September 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 14:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Large text already moved to Atlas Games (sports event). TexasAndroid 16:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 23:51, 29 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 14:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 16:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Is this a recreation from a previous CfD? siafu 23:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it's a recreation of Category:Back to the Future time travelers. Delete. JW 11:11, 2 September 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. TexasAndroid 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it would probably be a good idea to have a soft redirect to Category:Toruń instead of just deletion, since the real name uses a non-English character. siafu 23:55, 29 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 14:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Salsb 15:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Very few things to put in it anyway, and Category:Mesons is a perfectly good category.
- Delete per anon, though it's Category:Meson. siafu 23:57, 29 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 14:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Using "Australian Commonwealth" is awkward in any case. Here it is rather purposeless. I believe it should be renamed to "Ministries of Australia" because it sounds better, and so I can have sub-categories for State ministries. Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not well versed in Australian politics, but aren't there already State ministries sub-categorised in Category:Australian ministries, of which this is also a sub-category. For that reason, at this moment I vote keep. Hiding talk 21:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Rather sillily, I didn't notice that whilst working through the categories. However, I'd still like for the category to be renamed to Category:Ministries of Australia so that I incorporate all ministries, State and Commonwealth, under that title.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I think. James F. (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I prefer the current phrasing. It seems clearer for those who don't know how Australia is organised. CalJW
- Okay. Perhaps its not clear how I would like the hierarchy. I think "Ministries of Australia" should be the umbrella category for all ministries in Australia. "Australian Commonwealth ministries" would become "Australian ministries", which is consistent with the naming used for State ministries (eg "Western Australian ministries"). Had I noticed "Australian ministries" in the first place, I would not have needed to make this nomination.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:57, 3 September 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like this category to be renamed, as it provides too much confusion between the animated and comic book versions of Teen Titans. --Apostrophe 05:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Sounds like a logical move to lessen confusion. TexasAndroid 15:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 23:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment although I agree with the proposed rename, I ask that certain users refrain from moving contents of categories before the end of a discussion. Although it may seem that the discussion is logical and going in one direction, making changes hours after the proposal is premature as it may change. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 00:12, 30 August 2005 (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.
Volcanoes
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Oahu volcanoes to Category:Volcanoes of Oahu
- Category:Maui Nui volcanoes to Category:Volcanoes of Maui Nui
- Category:Hawaii (island) volcanoes to Category:Volcanoes of the Island of Hawaii
We recently renamed "Hawaiian volcanoes" to the more standard "Volcanoes of Hawaii". This subcategory should follow the same pattern Nandesuka 04:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- converted to crfu ∞Who?¿? 05:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. ∞Who?¿? 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename No argument TexasAndroid 15:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Advertise the running discussion at Wikipedia:Category titles which is pondering whether to change all of these to "in" or "of". -Splash 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Defer per Splash. siafu 00:00, 30 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed as speedy rename on 26 August. Does not meet speedy rename criteria, listing here. ∞Who?¿? 00:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be straightforward enough. Agree. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename (above was not vote, just listing). ∞Who?¿? 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as proposed. Bhoeble 14:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Why is the word 'heritage' in the title? If it's because they have some protection from British Heritage, then either capitals are needed or a completely different title is. -Splash 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I see this discussion has been preemtped. Why? -Splash 23:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to do with British Heritage. A heritage railway is a preserved railway still running steam or other vintage locomotives, primarily for tourists and rail enthusiasts. These are heritage railways in Britain, and the phrase "British heritage railways" would be understood as such by any railway enthusiast. Grutness...wha? 09:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Or even English Heritage, though that exists. CalJW 01:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The same person created both of these categories, and decided that the first was a mistake. This shouldn't really have needed to go to a vote. The categorisation is done by template, and the relevant amendment was made three days before this listing, but it didn't take effect for some technical reason. See the talk page if you want, but this is a storm in a tea-cup. Bhoeble 01:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- When categorisation is done by a template, any changes to the category name in the template require all articles containing the template to get null-edits before they will move to the new category (this is a problem I face all the time as a stub-sorter...) Grutness...wha? 10:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to do with British Heritage. A heritage railway is a preserved railway still running steam or other vintage locomotives, primarily for tourists and rail enthusiasts. These are heritage railways in Britain, and the phrase "British heritage railways" would be understood as such by any railway enthusiast. Grutness...wha? 09:04, 30 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 14:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct name is Category:2005 in science. —Mike 03:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy ∞Who?¿? 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2005 (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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 14:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct name is Category:2004 in science. —Mike 03:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy ∞Who?¿? 05:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2005 (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.