Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 27 September 29 >

September 28[edit]

Category:Girl[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Girl to Category:Girls

  • Use plural noun when possible. Georgia guy 22:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's not a category about individuals. 132.205.44.134 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment is the category necessary? Maybe it should be deleted. 132.205.44.134 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or upmerge to Category:Women. --musicpvm 05:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Women. --kingboyk 12:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - category:Girl is a grouping of names for women. category:Women is a grouping both of people/characters who are female, and of women-related topics and issues. I think category:women should probably be split into to separate categories along those lines. - jc37 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete altogether. This is a pointless category and has a sexist name. Don't call women "girls" categorically. And there's no point in a category that will include billions of people. When a category has too many members, no one can use it. Doczilla 05:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to category:Women. (while I think category:women should be split between persons and topics/issues, that isn't the concern of this CfD/R.) - jc37 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category contains unrelated generalities.--Mike Selinker 19:07, 4 October 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 section.

Category:Over-the-counter substances[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Over-the-counter substances to Category:Over-the-counter drugs

  • Rename, This name is far more common (e.g., "substance", "drug") and more descriptive. —Centrx→talk • 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something else, the category is of minimal world-wide use since drugs available without prescription varies. Maybe Category:Unregulated drugs? For something so variable and undefined deletion is probably a better option.--Peta 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are major problems with this cat since it can not present a world view. If we believe it should be kept, then Category:Over-the-counter substances should become the parent and only allow sub cats for Category:Fooian over-the-counter substances since the data should be by country to have any meaning. The problem with this approach is that a substance could be listed in every subcategory. For this type of category to work, it would probably need to only include only substances that are not regulated anywhere. If that was the criteria, how would you meet WP:V? Vegaswikian 00:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OTC is different in different jurisdictions. 132.205.44.134 00:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. This is an international project. --kingboyk 12:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to category:Over-the-counter pharmaceuticals in the United States. See also: Pharmaceutics. - jc37 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would that be the only such category allowed, or would you ideally like some drugs to be in 200+ such categories? It's hard to say which of those options would be worse. Brammen 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create lists by national jurisdiction instead - While the information is probably useful, it would have to be divided by national jurisdictions. Which means that you'd end up having a drug being in one category per country that it is over-the-counter. Picture something like Aspirin having 100 categories, one for each country it can be obtained over the counter, and you can see the potential problem for an explosion of categories within drug articles. Instead, I'd suggest creating list articles to list the over the counter drugs within a given country. 63.111.163.13 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only classification that makes sense is that of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or related treaties, which defines Schedule I, II, III, and IV for international purposes, but has no special category for "unscheduled" drugs. As this is something that not only changes by jurisdiction but by preparation and over time it would be difficult to accurately (thus usefully) track. --Dhartung | Talk 17:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You reminded me that it also changes by strength. At one dosage it is OTC, at a higher dosage it can be Rx! Vegaswikian 19:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classification varies between countries. Brammen 18:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Should this nomination be expanded to include Category:Controlled substances which has a similar problem? Vegaswikian 21:48, 30 September 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 section.

Category:Unsubsted Indefblockeduser templates[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete, recreation --Kbdank71 19:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unsubsted Indefblockeduser templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, outdated, template now should not be subst'ed, no longer used. 72.139.119.165 19:43, 28 September 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 section.

Category:Fictional military[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional military (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy into Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States

  • Merge, The category Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States provides a much fuller list of ship classes, and ships of different eras. There is no reason to have two categories of this nature. The US Navy is the only US service branch which can operate aircraft carriers. The distinction between the two categories is meaningless here; it might be more meaningful if the topic were, eg, patrol boats. Sm8900 18:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; I no longer feel that ships should be listed by both country and navy, especially for the United States and other countries that have only had one navy whose name is as simple as this. In addition, as Sm8900 mentioned, the country category is complete while the navy category would take a lot of work to get up to snuff. Really, a merge amounts to a deletion of the navy category; everything it contains is found in the country category as well.TomTheHand 18:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. However, is it not true that other branches of the military have their own ships? - jc37 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, but no other branch of the military has its own aircraft carriers. I'm also not sure that there's value in separating ships by branch of the military. I have no real problem with categorizing all of the US military's cargo ships together, for example, whether they belong to the navy or the army. TomTheHand 13:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Use of navy/operator categories is discretionary. The important thing is to get proper categorization by country. Then if it is felt that navy/operator categories are useful in a situation, and it is very useful for cases such as Germany, Japan, and others with multiple navies that have served the countries, then it should be allowed. Obviously, in this case, there is little difference between Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy and Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States, but as long as navy/operator cats are maintained, people will keep seeing the breakdown by navy in other countries and try and apply it to the US and Royal Navies especially, and this will keep coming up. Personally, I feel we can go ahead and leave the navy categories and let them be populated as needed for the ships in question, even for cases such as this one. Josh 14:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ok, but even if that's true, shouldn't we still decide on using one or the other? I'm not sure that my views on this are necessarily the only correct ones, but this does seem like sort of a valid issue. There seems to be quite a bit of information in the "of the United States" category, and the "of the United States Navy" category does seem a bit redundant.--Sm8900 19:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - the difference between the two is minimal, and the proposal follows Wiki guidelines. Rgds, - Trident13 22:03, 4 October 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 section.

Category:Amber[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete. Improbable {{category redirect}}, the use of which template I am gradually trying to rationalise. RobertG ♬ talk 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/cleanup Delete. There are at six or seven articles that could be placed here if the main article were made the more probable Amber, but on second thought that category would be more useful if broadened to Category:Fossil resins. -choster 13:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hesitating to "Oppose", but I can very well see why the redirect is in place. "Amber" is the common "nickname" for the lands/series/etc. Compare to Star Wars, Star Trek, Narnia, and Middle-earth. Is there some other purpose that you have in mind for this category name? - jc37 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if kept it should not be used for sci-fi (and there is more than Zelazny's series named Amber). Pavel Vozenilek 18:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I disagree with the above, I don't think it's necessary as a category redirect at this time. If it becomes populated in the future with Zelazny works-related articles and such, then suggest restoring redirect. - jc37 19:37, 2 October 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 section.

Category:Living fossils[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Living fossils (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, non-encyclopedic, vague category. UtherSRG (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can't be unencyclopedic, if it has an entry by the same name in Wikipedia. I don't see your rationale. Did you bother to read the article at all? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or delete/listify, without using "living fossils". Suggestions...?
    Abstain per below. If kept (without rename), suggest a brief explanation included on the category's page for anyone not sure what "living fossils" identifies. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC), suggestion and vote withdrawn 16:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a great interesting category, man. What are you guys thinking? WP keeps stuff like number of F-words in movies and delete stuff like this?? --Sugarcaddy 17:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, oxymoron. >Radiant< 17:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something else, can't think what though. -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep category page needs to explain the concept.--Peta 22:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The term is a proper term. It's not vague, quite encyclopedic, and proper, so I comment "Do not rename category". Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 04:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I found this reference on the talk page of the article. while it's interesting, scroll down to the very last line of the article. It's a quote from an authority, who actually uses the term "Living Fossil". - jc37 13:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vaguely defined journalistic terms should not be used for science related articles. Pavel Vozenilek 18:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oxymoronic, the one thing fossils always are is dead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dismissing this as an oxymoron is not helpful; the word "fossil" is being used metaphorically. It's a real term, dating back to the 1930s. From the OED:
  • 1935 C. J. Chamberlain Gymnosperms iv. 61 The cycads of today may well be called ‘living fossils’.
  • 1953 J. S. Huxley Evolution in Action v. 127 There is the persistence of a few survivors from a once-abundant group–so-called ‘living fossils’, like the duckbill platypus; and that of a whole successful group.
  • 1955 Sci. Amer. Apr. 108/2 A living fossil is defined as an organism that has survived beyond its era. A standard example is the tuatara of New Zealand, which looks like a lizard but is in fact the ‘sole survivor of an order of reptiles which flourished in the great Age of Reptiles and is now extinct except for this one species’.
And for references in scientific literature (JSTOR links included for those with access):
Not to mention the book Living Fossils, edited by Niles Eldredge and Steven M. Stanley, ISBN 0387909575. —Celithemis 00:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. I wonder if the people who question the terms validity have read the Living fossil article. I became familiar with this term during my college science classes. Read the quote in the article, where it explains that Charles Darwin coined the term. Just because you are unfamiliar with the term doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because a term is an oxymoron doesn't mean it should be deleted. I agree that a longer description to define the term in the Category is appropriate. This is a real term!! Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 05:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, "ugly fish whose name starts with C and ends with th but I can't spell it" are often called "living fossils", and so are other things, a list of which appear in Living fossils. I don't see that as requiring a category, a list suffices unless it's enormously longer than I suspect it to be. And it is an oxymoron, hardly a good start for a category name which should be clear and unambiguous, which it isn't. Several of the paper titles use quotes round living fossils. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Sugarcaddy. There are many, many useless, boring categories, and this one is definitely interesting and might sometimes be useful. Rbraunwa 01:24, 3 October 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 section.

Category:AAFC[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Australian Air Force Cadets, expanding the acronym. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom or delete per below. David Kernow (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC), amended 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too small. -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 20:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Oppose deletion per {{AAFC}}. Redlinks suggest that this is under construction. - jc37 14:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main article links the other two. Both could be merged into the main article without issues. In fact one is probably going to be deleted in the near future. If these entries ever grow, then the category could be created. But for now it is not needed. Vegaswikian 05:30, 3 October 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 section.

Category:Towns in Tuscany[edit]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Cities and towns in Tuscany. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:04, 28 September 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 section.

Category:Pokémon Opening themes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or rename to Category:Pokémon theme music, seems like overcategorization to me. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:44, 28 September 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 section.

Category:Texas A&M alumni[edit]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Texas A&M University alumni. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:31, 28 September 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 section.

Category:Harvard alumni[edit]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Harvard University alumni. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:16, 28 September 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 section.

Category:Hypothetical natural satellites[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete; only article, List of hypothetical astronomical objects, was already in Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar system --Kbdank71 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hypothetical natural satellites to Category:Hypothetical moons

  • Hypothetical moons is a better name, and more in line with the consensus decision for the naming of category:moons. 70.51.11.250 13:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Hypothetical solar system objects or whatever it's currently called. Category is too small to be useful. RandomCritic 14:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, overcat. >Radiant< 17:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment moons are not necessarily in the solar system, especially hypothetical ones. So a merge into a solar system category is a bad idea. 132.205.4.47 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The hypothetical moons will be almost exclusively found OUTSIDE our solar system as telescope technology increases. Nom works well with Category:Moon decision. Category may be small for now, but I anticipate rapid growth soon. Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 04:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia currently has no articles about hypothetical (as opposed to fictional) extrasolar moons, and it is extremely unlikely that any will be detected in the near future, or hypothesized, except in the most general of terms. Recall that the smallest extrasolar object yet detected is half the size of Neptune. Detecting extrasolar moons, whose gravitational influence would be masked by that of their parent body, would be all but impossible. RandomCritic 15:19, 29 September 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 section.

Category:Advocates Generals of the European Court of Justice[edit]

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

The result of the debate was redirect --Kbdank71 18:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Advocates Generals of the European Court of Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, incorrect grammar; category with correct title exists. RobertG ♬ talk 12:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge - which has apparently already been done. And leave redirect in place, since this is a common error. - jc37 19:37, 2 October 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 section.

Category:ARP Synthesizers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy leave as category redirect. David Kernow (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ARP Synthesizers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not 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:America Online[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:America Online to Category:AOL

  • Rename. Article was moved in April because of announcement to adopt AOL as the official name of the company. Category name should be in line with article. Note to closing admin: if consensus is to rename, there is a {{category redirect}} at Category:AOL which must first be deleted. RobertG ♬ talk 12:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Doczilla 05:55, 1 October 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 section.

Category:AFVs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AFVs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete. Category names should be unambiguous, and AFV is a disambiguation page. RobertG ♬ talk 12:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to ? (It's apparently been depopulated.) - jc37 12:41, 28 September 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 section.

Category:People by city in England[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by city in England to Category:People by city or town in England

  • Rename, There is an official black and white distinction between cities and towns in the UK (see City status in the United Kingdom). There are exactly 50 cities in England, but this category currently boasts 115 sub-categories. Hawkestone 12:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in my experience "people by city" kind of categories doesn't belong here. This information needs a context and should be placed into the text. Pavel Vozenilek 12:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Perhaps Pavel Vozenilek would care to explain what his comment means as I have little idea. If it is that people by city category should not exist, it is surely too late to have that argument, and not relevant to the decision as to what to name this one. Twittenham 22:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean when one is listed in such category? Did he never dared outside the city? Was city mayor or major benefactor? I see quite often that some add at least one such category to every person, no matter how much it makes sense. It may, perhaps, be useful in form of lists with additional context. Pavel Vozenilek 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but with a note that "town or city" sounds more natural to me than "city or town", I'm not sure why. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:12, 29 September 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 section.

Category:A Christmas Carol Adaptations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge and delete. David Kernow (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A Christmas Carol Adaptations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, mis-capitalisation (correctly capitalised category exists). RobertG ♬ talk 12:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge - jc37 12:41, 28 September 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:Australian state forests[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Andrew c 22:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Australian state forests to Category:State forests in Australia[reply]

  • Rename, while the states and territories of Australia have "state forests", the Commonwealth does not. The rename clears up any ambiguity. Peta 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Hawkestone 12:07, 28 September 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 section.

Category:Long Island hip hop musicans[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge. David Kernow (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Long Island hip hop musicans into Category:Long Island rappers

  • Merge, Misspelled title, and is a duplicate of the already existing latter category. SubSeven 07:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Famous Letter Writers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was duplicate nomination. - EurekaLott 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Letter Writers to Category:Letter writers

  • Rename per cfr tagged but not posted 9/20/2006. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close It was listed on 20 September and the debate has been closed. Hawkestone 12:07, 28 September 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:Drugs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drugs of abuse into Category:Drugs
Category:Pharmacologic agents into Category:Drugs

  • Merge, Category:Drugs was unilaterally broken into Category:Drugs of abuse and Category:Pharmacologic agents without clear consensus, and Category:Drugs in an excellent umbrella category. Urania3 02:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just like to mention that Category:Pharmacologic agents has actually been around since 2004, and i'm not sure that its fate should be tied up with that of Category:Drugs of abuse. It could work equally well as a replacement category for Category:Drugs itself, has been discussed as such, and probably deserves more extended discussion before a decision it made. --heah 00:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Pharmacologic agents are substances which have medicinal value. Drugs of abuse are substances which are used as recreational drugs, or in religious/spiritual ritual, or as psychedelic drugs. See my post in Category_talk:Drugs#Drugs_vs_Drugs_of_abuse --Urod 07:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nearly without exception, every drug that is abused or used recreational is used or has been used medicinally or is under medical study; cocaine, cannabis, heroin, MDMA, mushrooms, etc. —Centrx→talk • 19:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Drugs of abuse to Category:Drugs, per nom. Theoretically any drug could be abused (as was noted in the linked discussion). Illegal drugs of <country> might be possible, however. (or something along those lines) - jc37 12:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Pharmacologic agents - jc37 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Drugs of abuse is not a suitable category for encyclopedic use. It is subjective. The is no objective way of classifying a drug in this way and thus: it will always mean different things to different groups or disciplines. I.e.., The DSM IV and ICD 10 definitions are different from statute definitions and statute definitions often contradict themselves according to whether the active chemical is in it's naturally occurring state or has been extracted and concentrated. In military medicine substances are not always used for their health benefits; an example of this is modafinil, and so on and so on. If a Mormon gets into the Whitehouse will it be the beginning of the end to being able to wake up each morning and smell the coffee? ..... The term is to invite the entry of misinformation and misunderstanding rather than enlightenment. --Aspro 13:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The mere existence of this category is against the wikipedia NPOV policy. The majority of these drugs also have valid medical uses. We also cannot label the long held religious use by indigenous peoples as "abuse". The DEA has no jurisdiction here. --Thoric 16:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. >Radiant< 17:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to avoid the confusion. - GilliamJF 21:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - an interwiki robot has (erroneously) asssigned the links for the "Category:Drugs" in all other Wikipedia languages under Category:Drug traffickers. - GilliamJF 21:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge drugs of abuse, keep pharmocologic agents for now. please check out the more extended discussion at Category talk:Drugs. Whether "pharmacologic agents" or "drugs" is the appropriate ubercategory here needs more discussion, as both could work; "pharmacologic agents" was not created unilaterally, but has been around for several years. "drugs of abuse" clearly needs to go. most articles in Category:Drugs and Category:Pharmacologic agents, btw, sholdn't even be there; they all fall under various subcats and their presence in either of those categories is redundant. --heah 00:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This category is strongly POV, about a topic that is subject to political debate in many countries, including the United States. Rbraunwa 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Drugs of abuse to Category:Recreational drugs. This takes away the POV questions and is a reasonable category. Still not sure about the drugs v Pharmacologic agents question. May vote later on that one. Vegaswikian 22:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Drugs used recreationally" would make more sense, but the issue with this is that essentially all psychoactive drugs are used recreationally; it would be a duplicate category. There may be more popular ones or ones that are more famous, but restricting it to only those would then be a different category. —Centrx→talk • 21:05, 2 October 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 section.

Category:Math wars[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Mathematics education reform --Kbdank71 18:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this category is not that necessary. While doubtless there is (heated) disagreement in some (many) places as to how to teach mathematics, I would doubt that things are that bad as to deserve such prominent emphasis in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Perhaps recategorizing all those articles in Category:Mathematics education would be more appropriate? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is already a mathematics education category, which covers a number of noncontroversial topics. The Math Wars have attained front page mainstream headline article status, even the NCTM mentions that they don't like the term, but acknowledge its popular usage. The Math Wars is pretty much the ONLY math topic that has reached this level of coverage in the popular press, renaming it to "education reform" obscures the issue of including math topics that fall on both sides of the issue. Citizens concerned about the math controversy need a list like this, not a general education category. Renaming it is better than deleting it though --Sugarcaddy 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, contains an arbitrary smattering of education-related articles used in this conflict; not a meaningful categorisation. >Radiant< 17:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator and Radiant. Quale 21:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Yes, it is an important cultural phenomenon, but it is clear from what's there that it doesn't work as a category. "Citizens" need more than that. Michael Kinyon 00:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge The Keep argument is a (perfectly valid) plea for a Math Wars article, which should exist, and be neutral. No reason to keep the category, however. Septentrionalis 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Mathematics education reform per nominator to avoid dubious tone --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename category:Math wars to Category:Mathematics education reform, per nominator's response to David Kernow above. - jc37 19:37, 2 October 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 section.

Category:Films based on the Moon[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Moon-related films, with hyphen. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films based on the Moon to Category:Moon related films

  • Rename, This is an attempt to make the cat name more like the others in Category:Films by genre, also I am not comfortable with the word "based" as it could mean things other than "positioned on". The other problem is some films in this category feature visits, other are solely set there. I have tried to make it so it could encompass both. Any better ideas will be warmly greeted! Mallanox 00:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overcat. Go by genre instead, the moon is not a genre. >Radiant< 17:28, 28 September 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 section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_28&oldid=1136103562"