Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 12
April 12
[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 - TexasAndroid 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category that replaced it, Category:Old Kingdom series is more appropriately named, and all entries have been moved there. I just need an admin to delete the old one. Nihiltres 00:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the new one seems horribly ambiguous. Perhaps both should be deleted in favour of Category:Old Kingdom series (Garth Nix) ? 132.205.44.134 00:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 132.205.44.134, do you know of any other "Old Kingdom" other than the one by Garth Nix? The Ninth Bright Shiner (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider that Old Kingdom is a term used in Egyptology, and that many works of fiction refer to Old Kingdom in relation to New Kingdom or Republic etc, when dealing with a realm in that transitioned, without reference to external realms, it's common enough. I would similarly commont on Old Republic as being ambiguous if you proposed it for Star Wars. 132.205.44.134 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that, I maintain that Category:Old Kingdom series is an appropriate name: it might not be were one to omit the word "series", which in my opinion should make it specific enough. If it turns out to be too ambiguous nonetheless, I will be just as happy to move it to another, less ambiguous title. Nihiltres 04:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No articles in catagory. The Republican 00:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 17:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Calvin Klein models and Category:Versace models created instead.
- Speedy delete both per nom. Bhoeble 17:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete both per nom. David Kernow 19:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and no longer needed, since the corresponding template has been redirected. -- Beland 23:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 17:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Beland. -- Kjkolb 14:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep - TexasAndroid 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicated cat., only populated with one article. Ziggurat 21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OPPOSE it is not a duplicate category. astronomy events are for events having to do with astronomy, as a thing. astronomical events are for events that astronomy studies. Astronomy Day would be totally inappropriate as an astronomical event, since no astronomer would study it (though a sociologist might), and it doesn't even take place in outer space. Zzzzzzzzzzz 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Zzzzzzzzzzz Bhoeble 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above; perhaps a brief one-liner needs to appear in each category to ensure difference between them clear. David Kernow 15:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pluralisation, possible merge with Courtoom sketch artists if anyone can think of a sensible title. Tim! 19:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename Bhoeble 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename per Bhoeble; re possible merge, I'd say "Forensic artists" and "Courtroom sketch artists" identify different activities. David Kernow 15:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalisation and pluralisation. Tim! 19:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename Bhoeble 17:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename per Bhoeble. David Kernow 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct legal terminology — see Litigant in person. Tim! 19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename with some reluctance. Everyday English is generally to be preferred but the legal term isn't too obscure. Bhoeble 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sezione di Roma
[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 - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't cover by the previous standardisation of the subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions by city as it was not in that category before I found it. Rename CalJW 00:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one needs amendment for capitalisation and I would like to see it brought into conformity with most other modern city street categories. The reason for the mention of roads is that it contained a subcategory for Ancient Roman roads, but I think it is more appropriate to make that a "see also" link as few or none of the roads in question were actually in Rome and I have done that. Rename CalJW 23:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent Category:Piazzas of Italy. CalJW 19:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures and on second thoughts (see below) I prefer a merge here. The churches and chapel categories are both in category:Places of worship in Rome alongside a synagogue and I expect someone will write an article about a mosque in Rome one day. ("A mosque in Rome", now that's a thought!) CalJW 18:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge per revised nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 18:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures. Rename. CalJW 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Is there a reason to keep this and Category:Churches and chapels in Rome? Vegaswikian 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an awkward case. Most other places just have a churches category. Maybe the two articles about chapels should be merged into articles about churches. On the other hand there is a parent category for chapels, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea. For now I will amend the nomination above to the more common form, put both in Category:Places of worship in Rome and cross reference them, but I'm open to suggestions. CalJW 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "cemeteries" should be mentioned first. Cemetery categories are more common and the parent category is category:Cemeteries in Italy. Rename Cemeteries and tombs in Rome CalJW 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Fountains of Rome to Category:Fountains in Rome;
Category:Villas of Rome to Category:Villas in Rome;
Category:Amphitheatres of Rome to Category:Amphitheatres in Rome
[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 - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures. Rename. CalJW 18:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A superfluous intermediate click. It is empty apart from two sub-categories which are both in category:Buildings and structures in Rome and it is incorrectly formatted.Delete CalJW 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge Category:Palaces (ancient and modern) of Rome with Category:Palaces in Rome;
Rename Category:Bridges (ancient and modern) in Rome to Category:Bridges in Rome
[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 - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parentheses aren't in line with standard practice and are redundant.
Palaces: There is a subcategory for ancient Roman palaces in Rome. Category:Palaces in Rome already exists, so merge.
Bridges: If someone thinks it is relevant to create a subcategory for Ancient Roman bridges in Rome that would be fine, but the top category should just be "Bridges" as for any other city. Rename. CalJW 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge Palaces, rename Bridges per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Palaces, rename Bridges per nom. Bhoeble 18:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Palaces, rename Bridges per nom. David Kernow 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "in" form is standard for categories of buildings and structures. Rename. CalJW 18:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. How about a Category:Tiny columns in Rome too? David Kernow 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clearer name, confirming that the category includes a wide range of buildings. Rename CalJW 18:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename
per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- It might be a little better if we used Ancient only once in the category name :) - EurekaLott 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. The duplication was obviously a typo and was not present on the category page. Bhoeble 18:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Grazie per la visita!
[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 - TexasAndroid 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:John Peel. Category offers no organisational benefits (it belongs to no category other than Category:John Peel) and in navigational terms presents an extra level with no benefits. Contains just 2 subcats. Per discussion at Category talk:Artists who recorded Peel Sessions. kingboyk 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, per nom. Flowerparty? 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. - EurekaLott 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 18:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More succinct name. Per discussion at Category talk:Artists who recorded Peel Sessions. kingboyk 18:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, per nom. Still can't work out if 'Peel Session artists' sounds better or not, though (without the double plural). Flowerparty? 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't we avoid refering to musicians as 'artists' in category names?(See Cat:Artists as opposed to Cat:Musicians; I can't find more specific discussion regarding this, though.) Or, since this is apparently not going to be a subcategory of Cat:Musicians but only Cat:John Peel, will that not be considered an ambiguity in this case? –Unint 00:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Hmm, completely forgot Cat:Albums by artist. I guess it's the best word for the situation. –Unint 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename agreed - doesn't really matter if the artist had the recording, recorded, broadcast, released on vinyl (a small number) or if the session was recorded and broadcast (many, many more). On another matter, the use of 'artist' is appropriate, as whilst most were musical, some where poetry and spoken word performances Steve-Ho 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 and delete as per David Kernow. - TexasAndroid 17:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We have two categories which only vary in spelling. The hyphenated form is correct. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, should it be Category:One-day International cricket, with a capital "I", or even, perhaps, Category:One-day Internationals? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're right. The article is called One-day International, so we should use that capitalisation. So we should do a combined merge and rename of the two categories into one new category. As for which name to choose, I think I have a slight preference for Category:One-day International cricket over Category:One-day Internationals, but I don't really care much. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per modified nom to Category:One-day International cricket David Kernow 16:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:One day international cricket (currently empty) and
- Rename Category:One-day international cricket → Category:One-day International cricket per above. David Kernow 15:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:One day international cricket (currently empty) and rename Category:One-day international cricket → Category:One-day International cricket -- I@n ≡ talk 15:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
White hip hop musicians, rappers, and groups
[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 and delete as proposed. - TexasAndroid 17:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the unpopulated Category:White hip hop musicians (which I created)
- Merge Category:White hip hop groups (which I created) into Category:Hip hop groups
- Merge Category:White rappers into Category:Rappers
At first I was hesitant to put these categories up to CFD. But then I noticed-- their very existence is biased against a worldview. If you actually think about it, a huge percent of rappers are white-- perhaps even most of them The existence of these categories is biased towards the issues of identity within America-- because this is an English encyclopedia, we forget that hip hop is a worldwide movement-- there are hip hop scenes in every european country.--Urthogie 15:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, very nicely argued proposal too. --kingboyk 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. David Kernow 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Correct category is Category:Tasmania cricketers. I've already recategorised the one article that was in the erroneous category. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhoeble (talk • contribs)
- Delete as category seems to be used as a list. (Why "Tasmania cricketers" (noun + noun) rather than "Tasmanian cricketers" (adjective + noun), though?) David Kernow 15:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they played for Tasmania, rather than being Tasmanians themselves. (Also it agrees with the sibling categories). Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, understood. Suggest, however, these types of categories named differently, as I imagine there'd be others who'd misunderstand the intention of this "[Country (noun)] cricketers" format. Regards, David Kernow 19:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they played for Tasmania, rather than being Tasmanians themselves. (Also it agrees with the sibling categories). Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for consistency with siblings. -- I@n ≡ talk 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese term of the TurboGrafx 16 video game console, this category is currently empty. I moved everything to Category:TurboGrafx 16 games. Should be deleted. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT are all PC Engine games released in North America for the TG16? IIRC there are SuperGrafx games in the PC Engine cat, and SG was not released in North America... 132.205.44.134 00:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response no other video game system has its own japanese equivalent games category. What is typically done is the US games category with the addition of Category:Japan exclusive computer and video games. However this existing category have its content changed to show that it refers to both PC engine and tg16 games. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Cricketers by skill
[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 all - TexasAndroid 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is to delete the following 36 categories:
- Category:All-rounders and all its nine national subcategories;
- Category:Batsmen and all its thirteen national subcategories;
- Category:Bowlers and all its eleven national subcategories.
Delete. Categorising cricketers by skill, in addition to by nationality and by first-class and national teams, seemed like a good idea, but in practice it hasn't worked well.
In brief, the main problem is that it is often doubtful which category a player belongs in. In cricket, all bowlers are required to bat, and many batsmen also bowl a bit, so there is no clear division between batsmen and all-rounders (players who are good at both batting and bowling); or between all-rounders and bowlers. Many fans perceive their heroes as being all-rounders, leading to NPOV problems in classification. As a result, these categories have never really caught on, and many (most?) players don't use them.
A straw poll at WikiProject Cricket showed unanimous support for deleting these categories. However, there is no consensus at WikiProject Cricket whether the parallel wicket-keeper categories should stay or go, so these are not being proposed for deletion.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. It's quite arbitrary as to whether a player is a specialist or an all-rounder a lot of the time, too. The difference between a "batsman who bowls a bit" and an all-rounder can be negligible. Just looking at my own country's national team I'd have to wonder about whether you would call Nathan Astle or Daniel Vettori all-rounders or a batsman and bowler respectively - not to mention the problems with players who changed during their careers (a recent NZ example would be Mark Richardson). These categories are too troublesome to be of any real use, even discounting the triple-cross-referencing foul-ups that they can cause. Grutness...wha? 02:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I@n ≡ talk 15:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
2 Protected Areas of the United States 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 - TexasAndroid 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:United States National Historic Landmarks → Category:National Historic Landmarks of the United States
- Category:United States National Preserves → Category:National Preserves of the United States
Makes the naming in-line with other similar categories, such as Category:National Natural Landmarks of the United States and Category:National Memorials of the United States. — Eoghanacht talk 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per my nom. — Eoghanacht talk 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as per mass renaming of NI categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 3. Kurando | ^_^ 12:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhoeble (talk • contribs)
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 16:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename --Mal 08:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category is a collection of all the descendent categories of Category:Cricket, flattened out. Its purpose appears to be to avoid people having to browse the category hierarchy in order to find the category they are looking for. I feel this is a bad precedent.
This category survived previous votes for deletion in January 2005 and in June 2005 with no consensus being reached. However, I feel it's time to revisit it. Its creator, jguk (t·c), has left Wikipedia, and there is now a consensus at WikiProject Cricket to delete it.
I intend to notify all the people who took part in the previous debates. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I would hate to see this happen for American football or basketball, say, where there are now at least a thousand subcategories. I don't have a real stake in the cricket categories, though, so I could imagine changing my mind if a cricket fan had a really good reason for this.--Mike Selinker 13:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as before. --Kbdank71 14:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've argued extensively against this category previously, and Wikipedia policy has changed since then to support my position more explicitly as well. If this category isn't deleted it should at a bare minimum be moved to the category talk pages for the various cricket subcategories. Bryan 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Happy for this to go if WP:Cricket is happy. --Nick Boalch ?!? 08:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with the above KingStrato 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. -- I@n ≡ talk 15:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason this category was left out when the other subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions by city were standardised. (I'm leaving the contents of the U.S. category to one side for the moment. I'd like to rename them too, but I suspect that some American users wouldn't approve. In any case this doesn't match the American categories either). Rename Category:Visitor attractions in Hong Kong. CalJW 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete TexasAndroid 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't fit at all, and it's empty. see its talk page. Snargle 05:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Empty now; was created by an anon who may have been unclear on the concept. -choster 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. David Kernow 16:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename - TexasAndroid 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. This category should be changed to matched the main article, Queen's University. The use of the ", Canada" qualifier is unnecessary and awkward form. See related discussion. --67.70.161.113 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep / Oppose. There are other Queen's Universities around, e.g. Belfast. Otherwise, this would set the Canadian above the rest. Ian Cairns 12:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only one other school. The other is officially called the Queen's University of Belfast, always with the regional qualifier. The Canadian school has no such qualifier. Putting in a regional qualifier after a comma has the misleading effect of suggesting there is more than one campus, as in University of California, Berkeley — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- I know two graduates of Queen's University in my home town in England - neither has ever set foot in Canada. The British usage is to refer to the nearer university as Queen's University, as per Bhoeble's contribution. The Canadian university is almost unknown. Wikipedia has a policy of calling things by their common name, not necessarily their formal name. I have no problem with the anon suggestion of Queen's University (Canada) and, similarly, Queen's University (Belfast). The Canadian main article needs renaming in conformance. Ian Cairns 00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. use of official names for both Queen's Unis. is best Mayumashu 05:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It is not true that the other one is always used with a qualifier. I have never heard of the university in Canada so "Queen's University" means the one in Belfast to me. Bhoeble 18:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, and even if you have not heard of the university, it should not be Queen's University, Canada, rather Queen's University (Canada) if you think Queen's University is ambiguous. 132.205.44.134 00:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. I'm with Mayumashu, use the official names for both Universities.--Greenmind 04:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep - TexasAndroid 17:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one member, and unlikely to add more, Third Lanark A.C. ended in 1967 -- ProveIt (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Have a look at Category:English popes and Category:Polish popes. --Mais oui! 07:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They existed for 85 years and we will very likely have a complete collection of articles about their managers one day. CalJW 08:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensous - TexasAndroid 17:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See: Category:Newcastle in Film and TV (blanked by creator) -- ProveIt (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Category:Newcastle in Film and TV breaks the capitalisation policy, best practice on abbreviations and the standard division between film and television. On the other handCategory:Television programmes set in Newcastle is fine. I have moved the three films in the former up to category:Newcastle upon Tyne culture (though I would have no objection to them being moved back to a film category, so I don't see that as a final move). This just leaves television programmes in Category:Newcastle in Film and TV . Reverse merge Category:Newcastle in Film and TV into Category:Television programmes set in Newcastle CalJW 08:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Parent category is "Newcastle upon Tyne" This category - whatever name is decided upon, should also have the cuty's full name, since there are other well known Newcastles (notably in NSW, Australia). Grutness...wha? 02:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Could be renamed Category:Television programmes set in Newcastle upon Tyne. Bhoeble 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 deleted TexasAndroid 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See: Category:Indian government stubs
- See: Category:Indian military stubs
- Blanked by User:Shyamsunder -- ProveIt (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An abandoned project .... -- ProveIt (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See: Category:Pakistan movement (blanked by creator) -- ProveIt (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep - TexasAndroid 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These two categories are redundant, as are their similarily named sub categories (World War II naval ships of country x and World War II ships of country x), however those sub categories are (generally) mutually exclusive (World War II battleships of country x will typically exist in either ships or naval ships but not both), which makes this a navigation nightmare. As an example, if you were looking for the United Kingdom's World War II ships, some (battleships, cruisers, etc.) would be in Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom, while others (destroyers, aircraft carriers, etc.) are in Category:World War II ships of the United Kingdom. Kralizec! (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, not all notable WWII ships were naval ships. The luxury liner Ile de France comes to mind as a notable ship involved in WWII. Then there's notable merchant shipping involved in battles at sea with commerce raiders or interdictors. There's the Norwegian ferry that was raided by partisans to stop heavy water being shipped to Nazi Germany, etc. 132.205.44.134 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, as per previous vote. I agree that the vast majority are naval, but it would really take making a sub-cat for naval ships and moving the relevant ones down to do it right. Josh 03:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created by an inexperience user, and the only article in the category is a copyvio. It should be deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhoeble (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 16:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - TexasAndroid 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect capitalisation. Created new one with second word lowercase, before realising I could request speedy renaming. The category is new, however, and there were only a couple articles in it before I moved them to the more proper name. Drat (Talk) 02:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom but more because category name is vague. Have proposed Category:Spiritual sequels renaming here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Kernow (talk • contribs)
- 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.