Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 24 September 26 >

September 25[edit]

Category:Villains turned heroes (fictional)[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 Delete. ∞Who?¿? 04:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible naming aside, it falls under overcategorization, and could easily be solved by throwing them into hero and villain categories. Apostrophe 20:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wholly agreed. Delete. --FuriousFreddy 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Reinyday, 01:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT' wasn't this deleted before? 132.205.45.148 18:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion log doesn't think so. -Splashtalk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps the title of the category was slightly different, but I seem to remember this being deleted. 132.205.45.110 16:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not very useful. — Phil Welch 18:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 23:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Carina22 17:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bhoeble 23:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It refers to a fascinating pattern in serial fiction: villains who are popular come back and inevitably become heroes! Throwing into hero and villain categories would miss the point. -- PhS 20:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC) NB: I'm biased since I'm the one who created the category.[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with PhS; this is a notable phenomenon in serial fiction. Apostrophe's solution is no solution; exactly how does he propose that category tags for heroes and villains be applied to convey that this character started as a villain and turned into a hero? Since it looks like this category will be deleted, however, I suggest that a List of villains who became heroes article be created instead, giving more opportunity to discuss the circumstances of the "face turn", as wrestling calls it. I'd also suggest tightening the criteria; there's a difference between a character like Darth Vader who does one heroic thing, gaining redemption at the end of the story and a character like Hawkeye who spends so many installments of the serial fiction as a hero that most readers are entirely unaware he was ever not a hero. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 3 October 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.

Category:British celebrities[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 No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 05:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proper category for British celebs who are actually barred from being here, according to the opening sentence and the way itr is being policed. It is a holding cat for those articles which cannot be categorised anywhere else. Go put the rubbish somewhere else and either delete or turn into a real category SqueakBox 18:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's purpose is clearly explained. Somewhere else would have to be category:British people and that should be as clear as possible. This is the wrong place for this nomination anyway. CalJW 18:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
vote struck, placed before moved to Cfd, user voted again below. ∞Who?¿? 05:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the wrong place? People can vot6e on the subject here, SqueakBox 18:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If this was a category for British cerlebrituies I would be happy with it, but it is not. I would like it to be a category for celebrities, containing all British celebrities, and making that info easily accessible, instead of having to trawl through the rubbishy non celebs who populate it and then trawl through other categories looking for real British celebs. At the moment you can't find British celebs in Wikipedia, signifying a breakdown in the cat system, SqueakBox 18:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment filed in the wrong place - relisting here. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. However this is a highly problematic category type and their is clearly great reluctance to use it. Apart from Britain only Hong Kong, Singapore and Canada appear to have celebrity categories. The Hong Kong category is being used in the same way as the British one (entries only for people famous for unusual reasons, other types of celebrity linked in the blurb) while the other two contain the obvious subcategories. Putting mainstream celebrities directly into such categories is out of the question because they would become ludicrously large and the category would become useless as a means of giving a home to the oddballs, who would be lost amid a sea of actors and singers. If someone wants to add the singer, actor etc subcategories I won't object to thatCalJW 00:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Move the articles to Category:British people. It is standard to put people in the "Fooish people" category if they do not fall into any of the subcategories. -- Reinyday, 01:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep That simply reflects that fact that the category system is simply immature and incomplete. We should have more specific categories for everyone. Osomec 18:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per CalJW's comments this is a problematic category. However, it is clearly not a catch-all category but designed to be used for people famous for being famous. Such people constitute a class of person (alas) in modern (British) society and some of those currently in there (e.g. Victoria Hervey) fit this description. The non-existence of similar cats by other nationality may be a reflection on the greater seriousness of those societies :) Valiantis 15:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems point of view to me and hard to police. I can't quite see how anyone can meet the criteria, it being a paradox. Victoria Hervey is already well categorised as a socialite, which is perhaps what this category is attempting to categorise. However, perhaps, given Category:Internet personalities we could rename to Category:Media personalities? Hiding talk 18:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That much worse IMO. It is a modern term and invites people to add all sorts of people who have other categories - and it will be much harder to justify keeping them out than it is with the current form. CalJW 03:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands. For this to function correctly, it needs remaking over. The information extracted by its current formulation is not encyclopaedic, and probably doens't even get mentioned in the preamble's words in the articles. A cat for Brit celebs is (barely) workable if careful thought is given to it, but not in its present form. However, a rename per Hiding is a weak second choice. -Splashtalk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is also Category:Canadian celebrities and Category:Hong Kong celebrities which are basically the same concept. It seems like overcat'ing, Hiding's rename isn't a bad idea. This should include the other two cats as well. ∞Who?¿? 19:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • reclassify and delete. Category:British beauties and Category:British dandies will handle half of these, and I suspect the rest are similar lacks of imagination. (Anyone who thinks Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire was famous for being famous should read the article.) Septentrionalis 20:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dandies might do, but "Beauties" is hopelessly pov. If you can think of more subcategories which aren't too pov, please go ahead and create them, rather than abusing the people who have done the previous spadework. By the way, I've read a book about Georgiana, and I think that apart from "Duchess", "celebrity" is the best term that can be used to classify her. CalJW 03:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and use more specific and meaningful categories instead. - Sean Curtin 04:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Has Sean Curtin tried to come up with "more specific and meaningful categories" for this ragbag? Carina22 17:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Instantnood 16:29, 1 October 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.

Film by director[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 Category:Films by Powell and Pressburger. ∞Who?¿? 04:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Powell and Pressburger films was recently renamed Category:Films directed by Powell and Pressburger as part of an umbrella discussion to standardize the directors cats. However a question has been raised about some of the articles where both directors were not acting as a director but one was a writer. The films are still considered films of "Powell and Pressburger". The question now is whether to rename the new cat. Possible choices given were: Category:Films by Powell and Pressburger, Category:Films made by Powell and Pressburger, Category:Films created by Powell and Pressburger, not to change or keep. ∞Who?¿? 16:16, 25 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.

Subcategories of sports venues by country categories[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 some (American football, Baseball, Basketball, and Golf). ∞Who?¿? 17:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To align with "Man-made objects" subrule of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), rename all "by country" subcats of

to "thing in country" format (and update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) accordingly). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Scott Davis Talk 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One objection Don't rename the Chinese golf courses category as proposed if that upsets local sensibilities. Bhoeble 19:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Category:Cricket grounds is not categorising by country, and resides in no by country category, the West Indies not being a country. Hiding talk 10:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note listing as proposed except those superceded, and the temporarily opposed rename of Chinese golf courses. ∞Who?¿? 17:40, 4 October 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.

Category:Football (soccer) venues by country[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 No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Separated for ease of discussion purposes (relevant comments from above copied or moved here). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (copied from above) Rename all. I'm glad there is some fruit from cat titles' discussions. And venue is a good word to standardise to. -Splashtalk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from above) Rename all. siafu 00:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from above) Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from above) Oppose proposed name for football venues and proposed name for motor racing circuits, both of which are U.S./North America centric. It is not necessary to mention "soccer" outside the U.S. and one or two other countries. IMO they should be "Motor racing circuits" and "football venues", with exceptions for the few where these are not the local terms. The "car race tracks" categories were created by a Canadian. It's taken me a while to spot this one, and this sort of thing is exactly why this should not be a speedy. This is in line with preference for local usage for national transport(ation) categories, which is remarkably uncontroversial. CalJW 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Football (soccer) venues in foo" places the more widely used term in a superior position, while preserving understandability for American readers. The point is not where the venues are, but where the reader is. This compromise is already in use for the parent category name (which is in turn a subcat of Category:Football venues, which includes both kinds).
      • It is fine as a disambiugator at that level, but not for more detailed categories. By the time American readers reach the national categories, they will know they are reading about "soccer". I strongly object to your habit of latching onto any category names that you approve of as evidence that the changes you propose are not changes of policy at all, while ignoring the names of other relevant categories which point in a different direction, even if there are far more of them. CalJW 06:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • By the time American readers reach ... implies a category visitation order that I believe there's no reason to assume. A reader could very well reach a list of country-related categories and, in this list, see a category named "Football venues in ..." where the context is the country (not the sport). Most Americans (I'm sorry to say) would expect this to be a category of American football (not soccer) stadiums. What does it hurt to have the disambiguator? And, BTW, please adhere to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed name for football venues. In most of the world, the sport is known as football, so, the name of the category should be "football venues". The word "soccer" is redundant. Carioca 03:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming football venues. That would be a change of policy, not a standardisation exercise. Osomec 10:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral: "Football" means different things in different places, so the football-related articles may need special cases to be sensible in context. However, I note that the article is called Football (soccer) so for consistency, using that full phrase in the category is reasonable.
--Scott Davis Talk 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion of the word "soccer" in any category where it is not included already as it is not needed. Bhoeble 19:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose adding the word "soccer" to any more countries. Carina22 16:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the votes for change were made when users were under the false impression that they were simply being asked to endorse existing policy, but there is no policy on this point. Therefore I believe they should be discounted unless reaffirmed. No one has voted for change since I pointed out the error. CalJW 00:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose adding the word soccer unless it's local usage, and disambiguation with other sport, e.g. rugby football, Canadian football, American football, is necessary. — Instantnood 19:47, 3 October 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.

Category:Motor racing circuits[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 subs to "Motor racing venues in country". ∞Who?¿? 16:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Separated for ease of discussion purposes (relevant comments from above copied or moved here). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (copied from above) Rename all. I'm glad there is some fruit from cat titles' discussions. And venue is a good word to standardise to. -Splashtalk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from above) Rename all. siafu 00:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from above) Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from above) Oppose proposed name for football venues and proposed name for motor racing circuits, both of which are U.S./North America centric. It is not necessary to mention "soccer" outside the U.S. and one or two other countries. IMO they should be "Motor racing circuits" and "football venues", with exceptions for the few where these are not the local terms. The "car race tracks" categories were created by a Canadian. It's taken me a while to spot this one, and this sort of thing is exactly why this should not be a speedy. This is in line with preference for local usage for national transport(ation) categories, which is remarkably uncontroversial. CalJW 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Motor racing" includes both automobile and motorcycle, and "circuit" in the US would be a series of races (for example, the "NASCAR circuit" is the series of NASCAR races at a variety of individual race tracks). To use "Motor racing circuits in the United States" as a category for individual tracks would simply be wrong. I understand "motor racing circuit" is what an individual automobile race track is called (at least in the UK), so it seems some compromise is in order here. The "car race track" suggestion merely reflected the existing naming.
    • Rick Block (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The European and Australian ones should be "motor racing circuits". Please stop trying to rush things through as though they are merely confirmation of existing policy when it is unlikely that a discussion has ever taken place. IMO these should be have been dealt with one at a time so that the issues can be discussed. CalJW 06:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support "Motor racing circuits in country", (but oppose "car race tracks in country")
      • Category:Motor racing circuits: subcats to be "Motor racing circuits in <country>". Motor racing circuits could include venues used for motorbikes, go-karts, speedway etc. which are excluded by a name of "car race tracks", leading to a desire to create parallel Category:Motorbike race tracks, with many tracks included in both.
--Scott Davis Talk 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, the best approach in these sorts of cases is to avoid using a US-centric or UK-centric term if something else can be used that is US/UK neutral. How about "Automobile race courses in foo"? Is this sufficiently US/UK neutral? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately not. "Automobile" is the least neutral term which has featured in this discussion. We say "car" in the UK (which includes what Americans call "light trucks"). Bhoeble 19:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is not what do you say, but what can you unambiguously understand. Do you immediately comprehend "automobile race course" to be the same as "motor racing circuit" or is it such a foreign phraseology that you have no idea what it might mean? I immediately understand "motor racing circuit", but NOT as a single race course ("circuit" meaning a series of races, as opposed to the closed loop layout of an individual course). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment'The point is that non-Americans do not want to unambiguously understand when using Wikipedia that it is entirely controlled by Americans and the rest of us are mere guests whose own version of English is considered of less value than American English. That is why there is a policy that British English has equal status. CalJW 00:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • ... and vice versa (which is precisely why I'm arguing against "Motor racing circuits"). I assume this post means you agree with me. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of car race tracks for any outside the US (and maybe Canada). Use motor racing circuits for all the others. Bhoeble 19:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "car race tracks" except where it is local usage. Carina22 16:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the votes for change were made when users were under the false impression that they were simply being asked to endorse existing policy, but there is no policy on this point. Therefore I believe they should be discounted unless reaffirmed. No one has voted for change since I pointed out the error. CalJW 00:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible compromise: Would everybody be comfortable enough with Category:Motor racing tracks and Category:Motor racing tracks in Country? The language sounds clumsy, but it seems maybe everybody can accept it. --Scott Davis Talk 01:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about "Motor racing venues"? This would seem to include (um) places where motorcycles (um) compete against each other by trying to go faster as well as places (um) other motorized vehicles that aren't motorcycles might engage in similar activities. Such places are called in the US "car race tracks", "speedways", "drag strips" (these are straight ones, usually 1/4 mile [about 400m] long), and in the UK apparently called "motor racing circuits". This suggestion favors neither US nor UK terminology, either of which (IMO) we should try to avoid. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support "motor racing venues". I would not consider a drag strip or hill climb course to be a "circuit". I also think "venue" is better than "track" for temporary circuits such as the Adelaide Street Circuit, which is not a race track for most of the year. Well done. --Scott Davis Talk 02:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as motor racing venues. — Instantnood 19:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Now supporting "motor racing venues". CalJW 00:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note although it was mentioned to rename the parent, and it would be obvious to do so, it was not tagged as part of the umbrella. It would need sufficient notice in order to be renamed. ∞Who?¿? 16:53, 4 October 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.

Category:Athletes at the 2001 World Championships in Athletics[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 Delete. ∞Who?¿? 17:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overcategorization. Currently contains only one article. Punkmorten 15:49, 25 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.

Subcategories of Category:Airports[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 all subcats to "Airports in foo". ∞Who?¿? 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To align with "Man-made objects" subrule of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), rename all subcats to "Airports in foo" form (and modify Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) accordingly). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:47, 25 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.

Subcategories of Category:Forts by country[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 all subcats "Forts in Foo". ∞Who?¿? 17:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forts have locations, not nationalities; in addition, control of a fort may change hand one or more times over the course of its history. Rename Category:American forts to Category:Forts in the United States, etc. Neutralitytalk 15:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is a request to move all subcats to [[:Category:Forts in <countryname>]] and list this convention in the newly official Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) (aligns with the "Man-made objects" subrule). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if so, please tag each category affected, to give due notice, or none of them will be changed. ∞Who?¿? 15:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure this is necessary under the rules spelled out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). I think this needs to be discussed, let's move it to Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I object to any renaming without tagging. That doesn't even apply to speedies. CalJW 01:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I too object to any renaming without tagging. We have watchlists for a reason, and people will be able to rightly protest the rename if they weren't told 'their' category was under consideration. -Splashtalk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, and establish said rule. -Splashtalk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. No argument. siafu 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nominator. Osomec 20:35, 28 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.

Category:Movies Rated PG[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 No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 17:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a biased category. This rating probably only applies to U.S. A movie may have various ratings in different countries. *drew 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Darwinek 14:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This rating is used in several countries, but usage obviously varies. CalJW 18:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Highly unmaintainable. "PG" is used in more countries than the US. --FuriousFreddy 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 00:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Carina22 17:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think we should keep it. All we have to do is change the name to Movies Rated PG In the United States. People who know what the ratings of these movies can create ones for canada, africa, uk, mexico, australia, iran, china, japan, russia, and all the other copuntries can see what these movies are rated. An Iwant more and more people to know the US culture of movies and other countries. I always think it's fun to see what other countries rate our movies. Like canada, the us can rate Spy Kids as PG where Canada can rate it as a G or the U.K. can rated it as a PG-12 or something like that. Tcatron565
  • Delete or else Keep and Rename. If renamed, should say "films" instead of movies for consistency with other categories such as Category:1939 films, and should identify the rating as the MPAA PG rating. I don't think the idea of the category is inherently bad, but some thought should have been given to existing category names as well as ambiguity of the rating. Additional thought needs to be given to whether or not we want a category for every rating of every rating system (maybe, maybe not). Jdavidb 21:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited to remove my Delete vote. Instantnood has definitely convinced me that Wikipedia should track this information, and with a category. Jdavidb 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just curious, but in what way would a simple list of movie titles and infoboxes in each movie article not do a better job than having monster-sized category lists in every article?--Huaiwei 15:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How would having to make two edits to accomplish the same thing do a better job than being able to make the edit in only one place? It seems to me that, at best, your solution can only do as good a job, not better. Jdavidb 15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • request for comments: I'd like to ask those voting on or reading this CFD to also consider whether or not Category:Hilary Duff movies is appropriate. I would lean toward an answer of "no." Jdavidb 21:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (Update: filed a CFD on this. Jdavidb 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Highly unmaintainable.SD6-Agent 08:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep renamed Category:Movies rated PG in the United States. Bhoeble 19:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't IMDb. tregoweth 04:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Bhoeble and Tcatron565. — Instantnood 09:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I agree that it will be fun to see how each country grades each movie, having a long list of categories is not a good idea either. An infobox might be a better alternative.--Huaiwei 09:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's a good idea too.. to have that information provided in the film infobox template. The function of categories cannot be replaced, however. — Instantnood 11:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Categories may have certain functions, but they are not practical for all uses. It is simply not practical to have each movie page having an overwelmingly long list of categories, each with a rather long category name to boot. I do not think the ends justify the means.--Huaiwei 06:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with huaiwei. Amren (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Any idea how can one look for films rated PG? — Instantnood 06:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Go to their local store and check.--Huaiwei 06:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I mean a list of films of a certain rating on Wikipedia. :-D — Instantnood 07:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Same answer.--Huaiwei 07:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright. The question is: where can one find a list of films of a certain rating, on Wikipedia. Are you saying the person should check on Wikipedia with a computer at a local store, or the person should check at a local store operated by Wikipedia? — Instantnood 08:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • In case you arent familiar with a music store, it is usually a physical space in which people can walk in and find titles with their respective ratings on the labels. Some shops also do shoppers a favour by shelving the titles according to classification. And no, I dont think many of these stores provide a computer for people to check up wikipedia before finding the relevant title in the store. Asking the staff usually produces a quicker and more up-to-date answer.--Huaiwei 09:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Obviously I am not asking, and am not interested in, how to look for films by ratings in a local store. What I asked was how can one look for articles of films by ratings on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 10:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • My responses are self-explanatory, and I do not think I need to comment further. Either accept them, or agree to disagree.--Huaiwei 10:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: It can also be found on IMDb [1]. --*drew 06:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. There's no reason for Wikipedia not to keep similar listings. — Instantnood 08:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename per above. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although these ratings are done by MPAA, I see no reason why this cannot keep it's name and become a sub of Category:Motion Picture Association of America. This is an encylopedia and a movie store isn't a place to do research if one is looking up information on certain rated movies, IMHO. ∞Who?¿? 17:22, 4 October 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.

Category:Kazakh people to Category:Kazakhstani people[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. ∞Who?¿? 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged 24 Aug, but not listed here. ∞Who?¿? 09:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose -- Kazakh is far more common than Kazakhistani Aldux 12:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Look at the explanation from August 24. - Darwinek 14:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Kazakh is the ethnicity, Kazakhstani is the nationality. --Neutralitytalk 15:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Neutrality. -Splashtalk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would make sense to keep and rename to Category:Kazakhs. We have ethnic group categories for other countries, why are Kazakhs excluded? Really, given the ethnic diversity of modern Kazakhstan, both Category:Kazakhs and Category:Kazakhstani people could well exist, the former being a subcat of the latter. (note this isn't a vote, just a comment). siafu 00:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. *drew 00:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The two could co-exist, but there is probably too much overlap for it to be helpful. Bhoeble 19:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: According to demographics of Kazakhstan, Kazakhs account for 53.4% of the population. 30% are Russians. There are over a million Kazakhs in Xinjiang of the PRC alone. — Instantnood 09:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both categories. — Instantnood 09:30, 3 October 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.

Category:Transportation in Tanzania[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. ∞Who?¿? 04:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is another transport(ation) category which wasn't actually amended after it was agreed to switch them to local usage. Tanzania is a former British colony so it uses Commonwealth English. The relevant ministry is called the Ministry of Communications and Transport. Rename category:Transport in Tanzania CalJW 08:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Establish a rule at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and make this a speedy. (And, rename per nom.) -Splashtalk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the vote, but I disapprove of the attempt to expand speedy category renaming, and there are some doubtful cases in this category so it is particularly inappropriate in this case. We can't just change all Commonwealth countries for example, because Canada and Ireland would be both wrong, though in opposite ways. CalJW 03:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant establish the agreement you refer to: "...to switch them to local usage", rather than to a particular 'orientation'. They're going to come here repeatedly, and get nodded through. Why not do it in two days (or on sight) rather than in 7? -Splashtalk 03:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. A speedy rule for appropriate naming to locality wouldn't go amiss, either, no. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 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.

Category:Sport shooters by discipline[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 Delete deleted as empty. ∞Who?¿? 08:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, tagged 21 Sept, but not listed here. ∞Who?¿? 08:22, 25 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.

Category:Portland, Oregon Buildings[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 Merge. ∞Who?¿? 04:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, tagged 21 Sept but not listed here. ∞Who?¿? 08:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following articles could be added to this category, in which case it wouldn't be empty:
Commonwealth Building (Portland, Oregon)
Portland Public Service Building
Fox Tower (Portland, Oregon)
1000 Broadway (Portland, Oregon)
Congress Center (Portland, Oregon)
Architecture in Portland, Oregon
Portland Public Service Building
Wells Fargo Center (Portland, Oregon)
US Bancorp Tower (Portland, Oregon)
Concordia University (Portland, Oregon)
Riverdale High School (Portland, Oregon)
I vote keep and add the appropriate articles. -Seth Mahoney 09:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we look at Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state and some of the other states, there isn't a category title like this one. If anything propose creating Category:Buildings and structures in Oregon, and then rename this to be a sub-cat Category:Buildings in Portland and add those articles. ∞Who?¿? 09:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That works for me. -Seth Mahoney 09:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The schools are cat'd seperately, I checked the other "structures.. by state" and they didnt' have them. Some of them are cat'd under "skyscrapers by state" so I just added that cat as a sub. ∞Who?¿? 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate and keep as above. You can be bold about doing so, I think. -Splashtalk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you meant "as above" to be my suggestion? Which I just created the other cats, most other states have them and I'm sure there are plenty of other notable structures to add to them.. ∞Who?¿? 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Who. The parent can include the articles in Bridges in Portland, Oregon. siafu 00:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested by Who. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. All of the other categories in Category:Portland, Oregon have the word Oregon in their names. I believe the title shoul be Category:Buildings in Portland, Oregon. Either that or Buildings of Portland, Oregon. The bottom line is that there are now two Portland buildings categories and there only needs to be one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmchuff (talk • contribs) 03:53, 28 September 2005
Sorry I did not sign my vote! --Jason McHuff 22:52, 1 October 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.

Category:Theatre by nationality[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. ∞Who?¿? 04:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theatres don't have nationalities, people do. Rename Category:Theatre by country. It is already in category:Categories by country and the closest parallel, literature is "by country". CalJW 06:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. ∞Who?¿? 06:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency, per nominator LiniShu 02:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Establish a rule at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and make this a speedy. (And, rename per nom.) -Splashtalk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure sure what sort of rule you're suggesting. One that says something like "x by country" categories should be named "X by country" (not "Nationality x"), or a rule pertaining to the subcategories of Category:Theatre by nationality? In either case, since such a rule does yet exist it would not be a candidate for speedying. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is only in Category:Theatre where it belongs. Do not confuse with Category:Theatres (the buildings themselves), some of which are listed by country. I think Theatre (all encompassing) can belong to a nationality. - Sticki 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. Carina22 16:47, 2 October 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.

Category:British theatre[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 Merge. ∞Who?¿? 04:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the much better populated category:Theatre in the United Kingdom. CalJW 06:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as per nominator. --FuriousFreddy 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Btw, how about renaming other cats in Category:Theatre by nationality into "Theatre in Foo" format?--Huaiwei 08:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree: If the first word of the category refers to the country, it is easier to find alphabetically. If your suggestiong were adopted, all subcategories would be filed under "T". - Sticki 16:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your concern is easily addressed by using the wikimarkup [[category:Theatre in the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]], which then lists the category by "United" instead of by "Theatre". This has already been done in most categories.--Huaiwei 16:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Consider a merge to Category:British theatre, or perhaps Category:United Kingdom theatre, similar to Category:U.S. theatre. This makes the country easier to locate in the alphabetical list. - Sticki 16:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't a problem. Categories can be placed anywhere on an alphabetical list using |. That is standard practice. Bhoeble 19:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal Bhoeble 19:39, 1 October 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.

Category:Australian crime figures[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. ∞Who?¿? 04:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts with the format of the other 13 categories in category:Criminals by nationality. Rename Category:Australian criminals. CalJW 06:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. No argument. siafu 21:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. I thought originally that this would be a category of articles about statistical trends for crime in Austrlia, so... ;-) James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- brings into line with the rest of the national crime category naming conventions. -- Longhair | Talk 23:37, 27 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.

category:United States shopping malls[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. ∞Who?¿? 04:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All of the other subcategories of category:Buildings and structures in the United States have the building type first except three government related ones and stubs, and it makes for a neater list to have them this way round. So let's rename this one category:Shopping malls in the United States. Two state subcats have been created so far and let's rename them in the same way:

CalJW 06:28, 25 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.

Category:Australian linguistics[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 Delete. ∞Who?¿? 05:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard category. It contained 9 articles which I have moved to a new Category:Australian English. That naturally fits into category:Languages of Australia which is the standard form main category and is in the usual culture and society categories, rendering this one redundant. Delete CalJW 05:35, 25 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.

Category:Royal shows[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. ∞Who?¿? 05:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles are about shows in Australia. Category:Royal shows in Australia. CalJW 05:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, I guess there isn't any other country that does these? ∞Who?¿? 05:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still a Royal Agricultural Show in the UK I think but it doesn't have an article. Possibly one or two in New Zealand or Canada, but a holding category can be recreated if it is needed. CalJW 08:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Carina22 17:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It hasn't been nominated for deletion. Osomec 20:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Royal shows in AustraliaBhoeble 23:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. When I created the category I expected to find articles for British and NZ Royal shows, but those articles seem not to exist. --Scott Davis Talk 23:29, 30 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.

Buildings and structures in Australia[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 all. ∞Who?¿? 05:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following the recent mass renamings of country, US state and British county categories to the standard "Buildings and structures" form, the Australian categories should also be renamed "Buildings and structures in X":

I just creatd the Perth category myself, so that's correct already. CalJW 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all. ∞Who?¿? 05:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all: I created the Adelaide category in a moment of pretension, and neglected to rename it. I still think it more felicitous, but. :)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. No argument. siafu 22:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed. --Scott Davis Talk 15:29, 29 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.

Institutions by country and the overall category[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 Change as proposed. ∞Who?¿? 05:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my nomination of category:Iranian institutions below I have decided to address the remainder of these now. "Institutions" is a poor name for a category in a national menu because people interpret it in totally inconsistent ways:

  • As being only for organisations with the word "institute" or "institution" in their name. Example: the Iranian category as nominated separately below. This is a random attribute and it is better to use the term "organisations" so that it is clear that all organisations may be included.
  • To mean institutions in the sense of "national institutions" as in "national icons". This was occurring in the British category before it was renamed category:British organisations and cleaned up.
  • To mean simply organisations. This is fine, but it is better to use the word organisations instead as it doesn't have these ambiguities.

In any case, there are twice as many "organisations" categories and two thirds of the countries with an "institutions" category already have an organisations category as well, which just creates duplication, confusion and more inconsistency. I would like to see all of them merged or renamed. I have removed those items which are not "organisations", but that only amounted to three or four and they are all in appropriate subject area categories in their national menus.

As can be observed from this selection of countries the four largest developed English speaking countries are all managing without an "institutions" category, so surely other countries don't need them either. Please also note that these categories have seen little use - they contain just a few percent of the entries they could contain - so this does not reverse a large amount of categorising effort. I prefer the "s" spelling, but that's a separate and smaller issue, so let's put it to one side for now please.

It follows on from this that we can also delete Category:Institutions by country, but it might come back. However, the overall category:Institutions category seems to me to be an unnecessary subcategory of category:Organizations. There is little consistency as to which types of organisation have been placed in it, and which (far more) have not. So if we delete both, hopefully neither will come back:

CalJW 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While adding the deletion notices I found a non-standard variant/duplicate. category:Associations in Ireland should be merged into category:Irish organisations when it has been created by renaming. CalJW 02:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the idea that organizations as such should be in the relevant organization category. If there are still things to put into the institutions categories, they should stay, otherwise they can be deleted. If the institutions categories stick around they should contain the relevant organization categories. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/rename all as proposed. Osomec 18:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the nominator said, but why do some have 'z' and some 's'? I thought we were consistent within articles, so we should probably be consistent within a set of categories. -Splashtalk 19:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's leave that for another time please. Nominations that try to address more than one issue have a nasty habit of ending up with "unresolved" status even if there is a clear preference on one issue. CalJW 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or merge as requested. Carina22 17:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the whole gamut. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless we can come up with a solution avoiding a word that has different US/UK spellings. Perhaps "associations" would work. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a needless spanner in the works. We already have far more organisations categories than institutions categories so it is not a new problem. Associations is like institutions in that it has a narrower meaning than organisations. We can sort out the spelling another time. Let's please deal with the main issue of inconsistency and muddle first. Also, it isn't really a UK/US issue as both spelling have advocates in the UK. It is just an inconsistently spelled wordCalJW 08:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Institutions are not just organisations. It also means " or mechanisms of social structure " and " informal social order and organization, reflecting human psychology, culture, habits and customs " (from the institutions article on Wikipedia, see also institutionalisation). — Instantnood 16:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/merge all as requested. The fact that "institutions" has more than one meaning is a reason not to use it for categories rather than a reason to do so. Bhoeble 19:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What about moving institutions into categories for organisations, and keep the institution categories for the another meaning (i.e. social structure, social order, culture, customs)? — Instantnood 19:46, 1 October 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.

category:Iranian institutions[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. ∞Who?¿? 05:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination follows on from the recent renaming of British institutions as category:British organisations, and my nomination for deletion of category:Swedish institutions on 20 September, which looks likely to succeed. This category is being used in a different way from either of those and this inevitable difference of interpretation of "institutions" is one of the main reasons why I believe institutions by country categories to be best avoided. In this case it has literally been used as a category for organisations with the word institute/institution in their name. The usage of these terms is arbitary, especially when we are dealing with bodies originally named in other languages. I have already added the three articles to category:Science and technology in Iran. I would like to see this renamed category:Organisations in Iran, so that it becomes clear that all organisations can be placed in it. I doubt really that either organisations or institutions categories are needed at the national level as I am standardising the national menus in such a way that there is a subject area category for any conceivable article, but if we delete both forms they are bound to keep coming back, so I think we should maintain the "organisations" categories. CalJW 01:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Same opinion as in vote above: move all articles about organizations to the organizations category, if nothing remains in the institutions category then delete it. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there isn't an organisations category and there won't be any articles in this one when the three in it have been moved. CalJW 03:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most likely true...but people have a few days yet though to add an Iranian institution that's not an organization. Also, voting this way now makes clear that I have no prejudice against recreation of the category later. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It's just a muddle as stated. Osomec 18:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as requested. Carina22 17:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 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.

Category:Songs by the Supremes -> Category:The Supremes songs[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 No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 05:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization. --FuriousFreddy 00:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename for consistency. ∞Who?¿? 05:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename since categories in the Category:Songs by artist have songs at the end of the name. -- Thorpe talk 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question — should there be an apostrophe in the new name, or is "The Supremes" being used adjectivally? -Splashtalk 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter. Neutralitytalk 01:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all of the rest of the category to "Songs by..." - that's the form we use for films, etc., and is a lot neater both in terms of grammar and semantics. James F. (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Osomec 20:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename in reverse per James F. siafu 21:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename in reverse per James F. for more macro consistency dml 17:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note It would take a seperate umbrella nomination to rename the subs of Category:Songs by artist, and each category would need to be tagged. This can be done by a bot by request. ∞Who?¿? 05:35, 4 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_25&oldid=1122043959"