Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 3

< August 2	August 4 >

August 3[edit]

Category:Defunct Canadian football teams[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct Canadian football teams to Category:Defunct Canadian Football League teams

Rename, The Category specifically contains defunct Canadian Football League teams. "Defunct Canadian football teams" might be a parent category one day, if and when there are some articles about defunct non-CFL Canadian football teams. heqs 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 13:07, 4 August 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.

Television journalists[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following two categories do not match the form used by their siblings. "Television journalists" is a good form to use as it is broad and version-of-English neutral. Use of this term for the main national category does not preclude the creation of more specialised subcategories, which can use local terms as appropriate.

Category:Television journalists of New Zealand to Category:New Zealand television journalists
Category:Hong Kong newscasters to Category:Hong Kong television journalists. Honbicot 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both Honbicot 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. Chicheley 13:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 13:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both. the wub "?!" 09:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:27, 9 August 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.

hockey again[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus was reached on the overall change to "players" in this hockey Cfd debate. But everybody seemed to support expanding the names. So I'm relisting them:

This vote is just about the abbreviations.--Mike Selinker 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. ReeseM 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to expand the acronyms. ProveIt ^(talk) 00:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. Flibirigit 04:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. BoojiBoy 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. DMighton 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. the wub "?!" 09:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Resolute 23:53, 8 August 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:E-Ring[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 delete --Kbdank71 15:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category was created by user who had just created several very short copyright violation articles about the characters. This television show only lasted one season, and the characters were not developed enough to merit their own articles. Only one item in the category. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ReeseM 23:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the wub "?!" 09:59, 6 August 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:Operetta performers[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 delete --Kbdank71 15:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, the distinction between opera performers and operetta performers is practically imperceptible. Consequently, this category was hardly ever used. The few performer articles formerly in the category have been re-categorized, so the category is now empty. Marc Shepherd 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ReeseM 23:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marc Shepherd (and category empty). David Kernow 01:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:10, 10 August 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:Lesbian and Gay organizations[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 found deleted --Kbdank71 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:LGBT organizations. I'm pretty sure this is just an oversight (the pages listed do not exclude bisexual and transgender interest) so I'm going to go ahead and move the pages myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dybryd (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. David Kernow 01:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Samuel Wantman 04:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians in Kerala[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Kerala Wikipedians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Uncontroversial. --M @r ē ino 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are there Category:Wikipedians in India and Category:Indian Wikipedians if the distinction between being in and being from or of is not important? Bejnar 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by location and the other is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity, so they are both different, but I do not think it's a good idea to divide states in this way. --musicpvm 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comment above. --musicpvm 18:42, 7 August 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:Turkish-Americans[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 reverse merge; merge Category:Turkish Americans into Category:Turkish-Americans --Kbdank71 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish-Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, This category was intended to be the new Category:Turkish Americans by someone without any discussion. It has no activity and it's absolutely pointless to have a "dupe" of a working category. MonsterOfTheLake 15:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge into this. The form with the hyphen is preferable. Osomec 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several without the hyphen, which function fairly well. It's easier to keep the current set-up. MonsterOfTheLake 23:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is an emerging standard. Foo-Barians or Bar Fooians to mean people of Bar who are of Foo ethnic background. This avoids confusion particularly between American and Commonwealth grammar. Anything that does't match should be converted. Reverse merge.--Dhartung | Talk 11:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge --William Allen Simpson 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Category:Turkish Americans was not tagged for the reverse-merge, so I'm relisting this for another week. The original discussion is here --Kbdank71 19:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Keep Category:Turkish Americans as redirect to Category:Turkish-Americans. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and keep Category:Turkish Americans as ALL "foo American" articles are unhyphenated and most cats are unhyphenated as well (many were redirected to hyphenated names without discussion though). The versions without the hyphen are much more common. In this case, all of the major Turkish American organizations do NOT use the hyphen. See http://www.ataa.org/ Assembly of Turkish American Associations, http://www.tadf.org/ Federation of Turkish American Associations, http://www.taaca.org/ Turkish American Association of California, http://www.tacam.org/ Turkish American Cultural Association of Michigan, Turkish American Cultural Alliance, http://www.tacsne.org/ The Turkish American Cultural Society of New England. --musicpvm 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom and musicpvm, or failing that reverse merge, but don't keep both. Either way, keep a category rdirect in place from the deleted cat. The current contents of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin use both "f-bar" and "foo bar" in roughly equal number, but suggest this should follow the conventions set out by musicpvm. --BrownHairedGirl 13:15, 4 August 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:Theatre in Czechoslovakia[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 delete --Kbdank71 15:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The category is obsolete. There is not even a page Culture in Czechoslovakia. The section Culture on Czechoslovakia page includes separate links to Czech and Slovak sections. JanSuchy 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User Oy[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 rename/merge to Category:User ye --Kbdank71 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Oy to Category:User oy

Merge - The latter category is currently unpopulated, but I think that it is preferred since the language categories are usually not capitalized. Cswrye 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:User ye -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I'm changing my vote to merge both into Category:User ye. --Cswrye 17:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:User ye. the wub "?!" 10:01, 6 August 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:Vindicated cranks[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 delete; only one entry, which makes neither a category nor a list --Kbdank71 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for nominator:

cruft of what sort?
forking (as in Wikipedia:POV forking) in what respect?
absurd how? Have no cranks ever had their theories vindicated?

Listify (if this may be done NPOVly). David Kernow 18:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify if it's not a copyvio, and delete the category. BoojiBoy 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is a nonsense cat (and I'm afraid it's be no better as a list).Jim62sch 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, but not under this name - it's contradictory. If they were vindicated, they were not really a crank after all. bd2412 T 21:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Just delete Not worth listifying. ReeseM 23:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - totally nonsense cat. Vsmith 03:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not listify. Chicheley 13:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - category refers to scientists initially considered to be cranks, but their theories gained universal acceptance decades later: there are dozens of articles in Wikipedia about such people; why not group them together for easy reference? --Uncle Ed 13:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV magnet from a pov promoter. FeloniousMonk 03:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Coming from someone who relentlessly reverts any information unfavorable to your cherished POV that "Evolution is true", that's rich. You try to delete everything that you disagree with. --Uncle Ed 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. Osomec 14:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The title is way too POV. Per Wikipedia's own article on the subject, the hallmark of being a crank is not having an unconventional idea, but of holding the opinion against overwhelming countervailing evidence. On this definition, even the single person now in the category does not belong. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Delete. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:28, 9 August 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:"100 Greatest Cartoons" Titles[edit]

Delete, unsourced categorization. Powers 17:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV. --musicpvm 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not for the above reasons. I found the source; it's the TV show 100 Greatest Cartoons; you'll note that the article on that show already has a list. Therefore, it's sourced, membership is NPOV (based on the fact of whether a cartoon made that show's list), but the category adds nothing that the list doesn't already have. Maybe replacing the cats with links to this article would be appropriate, but I'm not even sure of that. --M @r ē ino 22:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marcus 12:46, 8 August 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.

Wikipedian British English language categories[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User British English to Category:User BrE
Category:User en-gb to Category:User BrE
Merge - There are three categories for Wikipedians who speak British English. I'm recommending that we keep the BrE category because it is consistent with the ones for American English, Canadian English, and Southern American English. Cswrye 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There might be userboxes programmed to fill these cats. If the merge goes through, we should just change the userboxes rather than running the 'bot. --M @r ē ino 22:17, 3 August 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.

A few more singles to songs[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion at WikiProject Songs and here at CfD (April 28, June 9, July 5, July 11, and July 21), all categories for individual artists' singles were merged or renamed to include all of their songs. These are a few that escaped our net. ×Meegs 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per previous discussions. --musicpvm 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge all per above. Are the "X singles" categories now redirects...? Regards, David Kernow 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Man, I keep thinking we've found all these. Ah well, constant vigilance and all that.--Mike Selinker 21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ProveIt ^(talk) 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added category:Industrial singles because of a related CfD to switch "Singles by genre" to category:Songs by genre.--Mike Selinker 00:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- and I've just added Category:Underworld singles. ×Meegs 03:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- added Provelt's Black Crowes nom: Singles to songs -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- added Provelt's Mika Nakashima nom: :Since Category:Singles by artist is gone. --- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User ady-5[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 delete --Kbdank71 14:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was a stray subcategory in the English Wikipedian language catgory. I looks like ady-1 through 4 don't exist, and neither does the parent category of User ady. Cswrye 16:36, 3 August 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:Cast of Arrested Development to Category:Arrested Development actors[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match the other members of Category:Actors by television series. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency. --musicpvm 23:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. --Usgnus 17:03, 7 August 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:Orkney people[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orkney people to Category:People associated with Orkney

To comply with the naming convention of all other sub-cats of Category:People associated with Scotland by council area (Ex: Category:People associated with Aberdeen, Category:People associated with Dundee). Kurieeto 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Orkney, per naming conventions. ProveIt ^(talk) 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People associated with Orkney, per standard naming of all these cats; see Category:People associated with Scotland by council area. --Mais oui! 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Herewith the problem with "People from Place" (and "People of Place") categories, as people in such categories might not be "from" or "of" a place as regards birth, upbringing and/or residence. I guess "People associated with Place" is the catch-all format, but would there be a consensus for it...? If so, perhaps "People associated with Place" categories could include "People born in Place" subcategories. Regards, David Kernow 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC), updated 18:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and conventions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as requetsed by nom, per Mais oui! --M @r ē ino 22:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:User sae[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 relist here because Category:User SoE-N was not tagged for merging. --Kbdank71 14:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an empty English language Wikipedian category. There is no description explaining what this category is or what is supposed to be in it. Cswrye 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --musicpvm 17:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Category:User SoE-N into User sae. SAE is the abreviation used by linguists to refer to the Southern dialect of American English. -JCarriker 22:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with you on this one and would like to change my vote accordingly. Do you know the standard linguist abbreviations for British English, Irish English, American English, California English, Canadian English, and Australian English? Those categories may need to be renamed as well. --Cswrye 19:54, 7 August 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.

Scottish demonyms[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 rename/merge to People from Foo --Kbdank71 14:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are Scottish demonym categories. They are outliers to the Wikipedia norm of converting demonyms to "People from X" categories, which has occured several times for different regions now [1], [2], [3]. Please note that the previous renamings all included a redirect from the old demonym category to whatever new name was selected - This is proposed for the categories below in this nomination as well.

The Scottish case is distinct as follows: The primary category is worded "People associated with X" (Ex: Category:People associated with East Lothian). Sub-cats then include "Natives of X" (Ex: Category:Natives of East Lothian), appearingly intended only for those individuals actually born in the place in question. I believe either "People from X" or "Natives of X" should be chosen as new category names, as the demonyms continue to be phased out elsewhere.

--Kurieeto 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename / Redirect to the now standard People from Foo. No objection to Natives of Foo as subcat of People from Foo. ProveIt ^(talk) 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename People associated with Foo to People from Foo. No objection to Natives of Foo as subcat of People from Foo. ProveIt ^(talk) 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (back) to Natives of foo. These four were all unilaterally, manually re-named by [can't remember who] last year. It must've taken him ages!! While Aberdonian, Dundonian and Glaswegian are all extremely popular, common and well-known, the "Edinburgher" one has more tenuous loyalty (and I say this as a proud Edinburgher). "Natives of foo" is far clearer: it is exactly what it says on the tin: "native of", ie "born in". For example, I self-define as an Edinburgher, but I was not born in the city. "Native of" is purely objective and NPOV; however "People from" is highly subjective, and thus POV (which applies to these types of categories internationally, in my opinion.) --Mais oui! 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is the Deletion log for Category:Natives of Edinburgh. There are Deletion logs for the other 3 too. --Mais oui! 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to people from foo for uniformity. We don't need special rules for Scotland. Mais oui, the category you picked as an example was not unilaterally renamed. It was renamed as the result of a CFD initiated by you. - EurekaLott 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as People from X, which is consistent with categories from people from cities in other countries. Agent 86 18:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See #Category:Orkney people above. Regards, David Kernow 18:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC), simplified 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per EurekaLott to People from foo. Any other "Natives of foo" categories should be renamed as well. All people by city/subdivision categories have been moving towards a consistent "people from foo" form. There should not be exceptions for certain countries. I think the "People associated with foo" (which mostly only contain subcats) should also be merged into the new "People from foo" categories as it doesn't seem necessary to divide categories in this way and it is inconsistent with other countries. --musicpvm 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err... no. Bliss Carman (a Canadian) and Benjamin Constant (Swiss) are both in Category:University of Edinburgh alumni, and thus in a subcat of Category:People associated with Edinburgh. Neither of them are "from Edinburgh"; indeed they are not even "from Scotland", nor "from the United Kingdom"; however they are "associated with Edinburgh". I could easily pick out other examples from the other subcats of all the other "associated with" categories. Please see:

Thanks. --Mais oui! 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the categories you have listed have nothing to do with cities/subdivisions of countries, and one is a list (not a category). Scottish city/subdivision people categories should be consistent with other country's city/subdivision people categories, not random university/organization categories. And Category:University of Edinburgh alumni should not even have an additional Scottish people subcategory as Category:People by university in Scotland and Category:University of Edinburgh are more than sufficient. --musicpvm 23:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to People from Fooian - being from a place does not necessarily mean being native to that place and the former is a more desirable distinction to make as what matters more is being long-term resident to an area, not simply merely born there. (other Natives of Fooian need to be changed as well). Admittedly there is POV involved in this though but personally don t mind if a debate rages over where to draw a line, if a person resident of an area 'from' that area at five years residency, or 10? vote on this kind of discussion to settle the matter, then provision of the settled number of years at the head of each category page. (along these lines i think "people of" would be ideal and preferably to "people from" but am voting for "people from" here as not to scatter the vote) Mayumashu 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to People from Foo - My preference of the two options presented. Also as per EurekaLott. Kurieeto 22:19, 9 August 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:Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame[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 delete --Kbdank71 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Seems unnecessary to categorize players by their induction into a local sports hall of fame. The info is already listified. BoojiBoy 14:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 14:34, 5 August 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:Political ideology entry points[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political ideology entry points to Category:Political ideologies

Merge, this category has overlap with Category:Political theories, although not all articles in the Category:Political theories should be in the Category:Political ideologies. Those that don't, can remain in Category:Political theories. Intangible 14:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This suggests a Portal...? David Kernow 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No it does not. There are only a couple of Category:Politics portals. Anyways, I manually changed the categorization, so all that remains is for Category:Political ideology entry points to be deleted. Intangible 01:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it suggested 'Portal-ness' to me. Sorry to misunderstand. Regards, David 01:45, 4 August 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:Democratic peace theory[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 delete --Kbdank71 14:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category lists one book, one author, and two political theories. Too little to create a cat for this imho. Intangible 14:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And one of the theories doesn't belong in the cat anyway. Septentrionalis 19:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:34, 4 August 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:Arlesdale Railway[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 delete --Kbdank71 14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Sub-category of Category:Rail transport in fiction listing characters of the Arlesdale Railway (from The Railway Series) Created by a rather (over?) enthusiastic editor who is also noted for adding his own fan fiction to Wikipedia. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 10:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:The B-52s albums[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The B-52s albums to Category:The B-52's albums

Rename, To match the article name (The B52's) and the other categories (Category:The B-52's and subcategories thereof). kingboyk 10:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Seems speediable to me.--Mike Selinker 11:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I hate the apostrophe, but it is the spelling they publish under. ×Meegs 12:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Transport categories[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. See related evidence links, all links are to the official government ministries: --Darwinek 09:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Japan
- Jordan
- [4] and Morocco

Rename per nom. Osomec 12:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; proposal appears to be consistent with other subcats of Category:Transportation by country, which appear to use the locally preferred term in each case. --BrownHairedGirl 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ReeseM 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Chicheley 13:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can understand the use of "locally-preferred terms" for English-speaking countries, or countries where English is otherwise prominent, but arguing there is an English-language "locally-preferred term" for countries where English isn't widely spoken, and insisting on its inclusion in a category name, seems rather excessive. --saforrest 08:45, 6 August 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:Academy Award Nominated Black Performers[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 listified; delete cat --Kbdank71 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redundant categorization (all members already listed as African-American or Oscar nominees or winners), and misuse of the Category page as an article. Possibly listify. Dhartung

Delete, Would be a fine list (It is a fine list!) move it to List of black performers nominated for an Academy Award before deleting. -- Samuel Wantman 07:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 09:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment because this list is indeed very nicely maintained, I copied its contents to List of Academy Award Nominated Black Performers. If someone wants to move it to Samuel Wantman's proposed name, that's fine with me.
- Oh yeah, and delete cat. --M @r ē ino 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That title breaches the capitalisation policy. ReeseM 23:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I moved it to List of Academy Award nominated black performers -- Samuel Wantman 04:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Request: If possible, could the deleting administrator merge the history into that article? --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - List of Academy Award nominated black performers is now a redirect to the category (I know that is very strange.) This page should only exist in one location until the category is deleted. Otherwise, they might end up different and then it would be a mess. The redirect seemed to be the best option for now. When this discussion closes, The list can be moved there from the category. --Samuel Wantman 06:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ReeseM 23:07, 3 August 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:Sirianists[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 delete as empty --Kbdank71 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one article in this category. If this isn't grounds for deletion. I don't know what I've been standing on. -thats why I did your wife05:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

- And now there are none. Given the nominator's user name, I suspect that this is a bad faith nomination. Sirianism is a serious subject; see Sedevacantism and Giuseppe Cardinal Siri. --M@rēino 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shouldn't that category be deleted as well? As its empty. I suspect that names are a silly reason to assume bad faith. -That's why I did your work 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, let's just say I find something fishy about someone who has only made two edits -- to the user page and to this page.--M@rēino 03:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh man! You sussed me! Its true I have two edits! gasp now please You caught me like a shark on a gaff! I never thought you'd know I just made my first wikipedia account! Now welcome me with some baked treat!-That's why I did your work 04:44, 4 August 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:Albums with songs featured on a WOW Hits album[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 delete --Kbdank71 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think categorizing albums by what compilations their songs have appeared on is a good idea, especially with WOW Hits which releases several compilation albums annually. --musicpvm 05:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --kingboyk 10:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd say the say the same for any other compilation. ×Meegs 12:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No no no no no no NO! the wub "?!" 10:02, 6 August 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:New Generation Of American Leaders[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 delete --Kbdank71 13:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Ambiguous, subjective, unverifiable category JianLi 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incredibly subjective. --fuzzy510 04:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless. Remember? --tjstrf 04:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:MOS#Time, WP:NPOV, WP:V, others maybe. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meaninglessly arbitrary. Why not categorize by the color of their eyes? older ≠ wiser 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ReeseM 23:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JianLi. And to Bkonrad, about eye color: I actually went looking for a category for Lefties the other day but couldn't find one. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 4 August 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:Home Versions of Game shows[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 delete --Kbdank71 13:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fairly pointless list, as nearly all game shows of some success have had board games or electronic games. Renosecond 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misleading. AFAICT, none of the articles in this category are about the home versions of the game. They're all about the TV versions. --M @r ē ino 22:35, 3 August 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:British doctors[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.

Delete, Redundant with Category:British physicians, and inconsistent with the naming convention dominant among other subcategories of Category:Physicians by nationality. Category:British physicians will obviously need to be repopulated with the content of this category. Saforrest 03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to oppose (can I withdraw the nomination?) as I was unaware of the fact that "physician" != "medical doctor" in these contexts. I would support changing "doctor" to "medical doctor", as it was that possible ambiguity which my nomination was trying to remove. --Saforrest 18:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Usgnus 05:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose In most of the Commonwealth physician is NOT a synonymym of medical doctor. This is noted on Category:Physicians by nationality. Nathan Mercer 09:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:British physicians was created recently by an American, and it needs to go. Nathan Mercer 09:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has come up more than once before. As the explanation provided seems to have no effect, the only permanent solution is to rename them all to "medical doctors" and create two sets of category redirects. Osomec 12:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is an established and well-populated category. --Elonka 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose as per Elonka. Instead merge physicians into this category. --BrownHairedGirl 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above comments. ReeseM 23:13, 3 August 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:British physicians[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged into Category:British doctors as noted above. Nathan Mercer 09:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there is such a thing as a physician and it means something specific, is a merger required or is the sub-cat appropriate - not clear from the nomination. Tentatively oppose as being a meaningful sub-cat if used appropriately.--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Not worth the hassle of separating out. Not many articles are likely to say whether the doctor in question is a member of the Royal College of Physicians. It's the work they do that matters, not which exams they have passed. Osomec 12:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Elonka 17:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: the distinction appears to be mere pedantry. --BrownHairedGirl 19:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. ReeseM 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom as the existence of such a category will only confuse people like myself, who nominated Category:British doctors and Category:Australian doctors for deletion/renaming in ignorance of the specialized Commonwealth meaning of the term. --Saforrest 18:20, 5 August 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 doctors[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 nomination withdrawn. - EurekaLott 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian doctors to Category:Australian physicians

Rename, The usage "doctors" is ambiguous and inconsistent with the many other entries in Category:Physicians by nationality, e.g. Category:Canadian physicians. Saforrest 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to oppose (can I withdraw the nomination?) per the arguments below. --Saforrest 18:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. --Usgnus 05:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose In most of the Commonwealth physician is NOT a synonymym of medical doctor. This is noted on Category:Physicians by nationality. Nathan Mercer 09:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per User:Nathan Mercer; doctor is not ambiguous in Australia, not in context anyway and physician means something more specific, it is not a synonym for medical practitioner which would be the preferred unambiguous term if you had to go there--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has come up more than once before. As the explanation provided seems to have no effect, the only permanent solution is to rename them all to "medical doctors" and create two sets of category redirects. Osomec 12:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support changing them to "medical doctors", as it is the ambiguity in the unqualified term "doctor" which I was seeking to remove with this nomination . I've also tried to make the qualifier on Category:Physicians by nationality use a bit more emphatic language. I don't know about category redirects; perhaps, but that's a lot of category redirects. Perhaps just one, at Category:British doctors, would suffice. --Saforrest 18:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose physician in Australia refers to a medical specialist in internal medicine see the link to the College from Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Paul foord 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see the discussion from June 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_23#Category:Australian_doctors_to_Category:Australian_physicians Paul foord 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous comments. ReeseM 23:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still, just like I did in June. A "physician" is a specialist in Australian English, which this category appears to be for all registered medical practitioners. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:40, 6 August 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.

Wikipedians by interest in games and sports[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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main formats in these categories (Wikipedians who play X and Wikipedian Xers) that I think cover most of our needs. Sometimes the game itself is hidden behind in-game codewords, and I've made an attempt to make the categories clear as to what they're really about. The last one is more in line with the sports-watching fans from the earlier nomination.--Mike Selinker 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move all Category:Wikipedian/s X and Category:X Wikipedians to a separate "Wikipedia community" wiki and link userboxes et al there! David Kernow 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I take issue with this one: "*category:Wikipedians interested in pen-and-paper games to category:Wikipedian role-playing gamers". Not all role-playing gamers are pen-and-paper role-playing gamers. There are also video game role-playing gamers. Also, for all of the categories that end in "gamers", I think it sounds less awkward to say "play foo games" (for example, Category:Wikipedians who play computer and video games instead of Category:Wikipedian computer and video gamers). Other than that, I think I support renaming all the others as nominated. --Cswrye 03:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I switched the nominations to reflect these concerns.--Mike Selinker 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category:Wikipedians who like Red vs Blue would be a better target; Red vs Blue is not a game, but a machinima serial based off of Bungie games. — TKD::Talk 12:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I'm just a game designer. How'm I expected to know... Oh, right. So changed.--Mike Selinker 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. --musicpvm 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose those beginning "category:Wikipedians interested in..." That's a fine convention; there's no reason to change the meaning of those categories to make them fit some other convention. --M @r ē ino 22:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Added some from category:Wikipedians interested in outdoor pursuits.--Mike Selinker 06:32, 6 August 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.