Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2 June 4 >

June 3[edit]

Category:Argentine flora to Category:Flora of Argentina[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Already renamed. Vegaswikian 19:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per case below (with New Zealand) and naming standards for such - Category:Flora by country NTDOY Fanboy 04:12, 4 June 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:Crimean people[edit]

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

The result of the debate was relist Tim! 10:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs deletion, or renaming (to what?) for following reasons:

  • the "...people" categories are for the people of the given nationalities. But Crimea is a multi-ethnic historical region and autonomy with a complicated history. That's why the category should be renamed if the community designates it for the bio articles related to Crimean peninsula (which I object)
  • previously the category has been confusingly mixing bio articles with articles on ethnic groups, like Krymchaks. However, not all ethnicities present on peninsula were listed. But defining which groups are true Crimean people, and which aren't, would be a conflict issue inadmissable for WP. That's why I emptied the cat., and strongly object its using for categorizing "peoples"/ethnic groups

Feel free to suggest new name considering all above-written. Ukrained 22:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm... "... people" are really about personalities, but not about ethnic groups. IMHO in that case we should create Category:Crimean society and replace "ethnic" articles there. Don Alessandro 10:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking of two instead: the bio cat., like Category:Famous people/natives of Crimea, but only if people insist. You see, we have at least four different cultural&historical "areas" of Crimea: UBK, Sevastopol and other Russian Navy settlements, Tatars and modern Steppen Crimea (largerly Ukrainian and industrialized). Do we need to group all those famous people in one cat. And, aiming to ethnicities classification, I suggest some category or List of ethnic groups residing in Crimea (where every each small group is presented).
  • But first, Don, do you support or oppose deletion of the existing category? Under procedure, you should vote in bold so we can decide either to rename one category, or to delete and recreate two (1+list) instead. And we need few other thoughts to decide the issue. Cheers, Ukrained 08:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I still oppose the Crimean people wording as pointing to some single nationality/statehood. What do you say about Category:People of Crimea? Crimean personalities is less admissable for me.
  • And, as you can see from above, I'm for two categories :), or even three like suggested in the end of your post. Ukrained 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let it be "People of Crimea". Don Alessandro 12:45, 5 June 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:15 minutes of fame celebrities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 06:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not very useful. Broad scope. -- Longhair 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a self-defeating concept. David Kernow 23:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arbitary. Osomec 23:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. NTDOY Fanboy 00:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Very useful search criteria brenmar 01.33 5 June 2006
    • A search of that nature can be done on Wikipedia with the Google site search feature. If the Wikipedia category system was set up for these sort of searches it would soon become unmanagable. Alan Liefting 06:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how can you tell where someone is still famous somewhere else? Also categories should not be insults.--GwydionM 18:37, 6 June 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 Zealand plants to Category:Flora of New Zealand[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Vegaswikian 23:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will ensure consistency with Category:Flora by country. Alan Liefting 21:49, 3 June 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:Railway stations in Dundee[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny redundant catergory, already covered by Category:Transport_in_Dundee

  • Comment. It seems to exist for consistency in Category:Railway stations in Scotland. I have no problem with having a small catgory if it leads to consistency. There are other Category:Railway stations in Scotland sub cats with the same problem. Alan Liefting 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is precise and it isn't doing any harm. Osomec 23:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, this is beneficial more than not, consistency is good - having 'Railway stations in X' and 'Y in Dundee' for other cases helps warrant this. More may come later too.
just like to point out that there are actually only two stations in Dundee. I don't think it's likely to become more populated anytime soon. Ydam 18:21, 4 June 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.

Organizations by nationality/country[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to based in Foo. Vegaswikian 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the following are all sub-cats of Category:Organizations by country, they all also have a by nationality naming convention. I find this inconsistent and am proposing that they be renamed to a by country naming convention. If voting against this proposal, please consider commenting in favour of a move to Category:Organizations by nationality. By nationality namings are ambiguous, such as the scope of Category:English organisations. Almost all organization sub-cats such as companies, trade unions, and others, use a by country convention.

In regard to "in country" or "of country", both options have merits and drawbacks. Sub-categories of Category:Organizations such as Category:Companies by country and Category:Trade unions by country currently use "of country", but "of country" can be misleading in regard to if the organization is an organ of the state, for example Category:Organizations of the People's Republic of China. "In country" does not have that confusion with the state, though it may also be slightly ambiguous as multinational organizations may operate within more than one, or in fact within several states. "Organizations headquartered in Foo" or "Organizations based in Foo" are also offered for consideration.

Lastly, in regard to usage, "in country" appears to be used vastly more in practice for at least some states. Google searches (minus the term "wikipedia") found these results:

  • "Organizations in Canada" 243,000 hits [1] vs. "Organizations of Canada" 614 hits [2].
  • "Organizations in France" 29,500 hits [3] vs. "Organizations of France" 803 hits [4].
  • "Organizations in Cambodia" 819 hits [5] vs. "Organizations of Cambodia" 17 hits [6].

The following categories are proposed for renaming:

--Kurieeto 19:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Changed "in" to "based in" in list for renaming on June 5. Kurieeto 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Some organisations operate in a hundred plus countries, so categorising them by all the countries that they are to be found in would create a frightful mess. Honbicot 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:International organizations may address that issue, as Category:Multinational companies does for Category:Companies, a sub-cat of Category:Organizations. Kurieeto 19:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename We just went through this with Category:Trade unions by country (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23). Although personally I was in favour of the in county format the consensus was for of country, the same format as Category:Economies by country and others. The arugment that this change will create a mess doesn't work for me - I think Kurieeto's comment points to a useful solution. --Bookandcoffee 21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stongly oppose "in" for reasons given by Honbicot and because it doesn't reflect what the categories are primarily used for, ie organisations based in a place. Not so strongly against "of" but it creates longer and more awkward names. Osomec 23:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is "Xian organiz/sations" meant to indicate "Organiz/sations based in X"...?  Unsure, David Kernow 23:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, for example, the description of Category:British organisations is "Organisations in the United Kingdom.", comprising apparently only those organizations headquartered in the UK. Kurieeto 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, rename all to Category:Organiz/sations based in X.  Thanks, David Kernow 17:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Organizations based in ..." Using the noun form of the country is preferable to the adjective form because the adjective forms are highly variable and not everyone will know them. For instance, I never would have guessed that the adjective form for "Togo" is "Togolese". --Cyde↔Weys 19:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Organisations based in Foo", which is unambiguous. Hawkestone 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Organisations based in Foo", per Hawkestone, and is my preference of the two options provided in the proposal, respecting local usages of "s" and "z" in "organisations/organizations". Kurieeto 01:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about we just pick one and standardize on that? Colloquial spelling inside of articles is one thing, but using different spellings in parallel categories on a site-wide basis is confusing. For instance, I don't know which spelling is preferred in the majority of the countries given, so if I was in the organizations category for one country and wanted to go directly to another I might miss on the first try because I had to change a z to an s or vice-versa. And nevermind that most people probably wouldn't even think to do this. --Cyde↔Weys 04:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we did that, we would probably end up removing all the non-American spellings. However, if the American users we willing to allow the whole of Wikipedia to be written in British English, then we can change things on that basis :) Twittenham
  • Rename to "Organisations based in Foo" for clarity. Twittenham 16:09, 11 June 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:Women of Pakistan to Category:Pakistani women[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for renaming to match the current naming convention of all other sub-cats of Category:Women by nationality, such as Category:Welsh women and Category:Spanish women. Kurieeto 18:17, 3 June 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:Aftermath of World War I and Category:Aftermath of World War II[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are very nebulous. It is not clear what years each category spans--specifically, the end year. It is also not clear if this category is intended for all events following each war or only for those events that were somehow related to the war. If it's the former, then the category is simply a rehash of everything in Category:1919, Category:1920, etc. If it's the latter, then how do you demonstrate that the event was related? Does it have to be directly related or indirectly related? Appleseed (Talk) 15:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think; having just scanned the names of the articles in both categories, the criterion appears to be the latter and by name alone all those articles I saw indicated their relationship/relevance. Both categories' preambles indicate the scope intended. Regards, David Kernow 18:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a legitimate and interesting use of categories. It just needs to be much more tightly defined, and the borderline examples kicked out of the categories. The real question to ask, since this is a subcategory of Category:World War I, is whether an article would fit in Category:World War I? If not, don't put it in the "aftermath" category. An example would be World War II, which could be seen in part as a consequence of World War I. But you wouldn't put it in the WWI category, hence exclude from the aftermath category. Consider it a category covering the loose ends tied up after the World Wars (trials, reparations, peace treaties, drawing up new borders, and so forth). Ditto for the WW2 category. It might seem difficult to draw the line, but it should be possible. I have rewritten the category blurb to tighten up the definition, removing "consequences" and requiring them to be directly connected. Carcharoth 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if deleted, please move the relevant articles back to the WWI and WWII categories, and put the other articles in relevant places. Carcharoth 17:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They require use of editorial discretion, but I don't see that as a problem as the controversy quotient is low. Honbicot 19:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Outriggr 03:10, 4 June 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:Transportation in Pakistan to Category:Transport in Pakistan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete - EurekaLott 03:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three day old duplicate of established category:Transport in Pakistan. It was populated, which was an improper unilateral renaming, so I have reversed it. If someone wants a rename, the onus should be on him or her to obtain consensus here in advance. Honbicot 14:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete as above. Honbicot 14:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The editor appears to be involved in Asia and Pakistan related articles. I posted a pointer on the talk page asking for comments here if Transportation is really the correct term. Vegaswikian 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice that he lives in the United States. Honbicot 19:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect; No preference for direction of merge, but one should redirect to the other, or this will just keep happening. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created Category keeping in mind the Category: Transportation by country. Naming this category as Category: Transportation in Pakistan goes well with main category . This was only point. Redirecting is another good option. --Spasage 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not very long ago all the "Transportation in" categories for countries that use British english were changed to "Transport in". I'm not sure I liked the change as it does create inconsistancies in category naming between countries but as I recall it got very little opposition. --JeffW 06:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete/merge Hawkestone 22:51, 7 June 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:Catholic education to Category:Roman Catholic education[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect. Vegaswikian 23:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect so someone else doesn't recreate it. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect --Aldux 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect Osomec 23:30, 3 June 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:Companies of zhejiang taizhou to Category:Companies based in Taizhou, Zhejiang[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taizhou is a city in China with a population of 5.4 million. The category names needs at least one more capital letter. "Based in" is used for U.S. states and is better for subnational company categories because it discourages overcategorisation to places where a company happens to have a branch. The city's article is at Taizhou, Zhejiang for disambiguation purposes. Nathcer 14:17, 3 June 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:Cinderella adaptions to Category:Cinderella adaptations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptations is proper usage of English, not adaptions Gurubrahma 12:21, 3 June 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:Historical figures of unknown birthdates to Category:Year of birth unknown[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to merge Tim! 09:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "year of birth unknown" category is the best way to deal with this, though some of these articles should actually be in Category:Year of birth missing, as someone knows the year, but it hasn't been added yet. This category, "year of birth unknown", should be for people with genuinely unknown or uncertain birth years. See also the discussion here. Carcharoth 11:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Abstain per below. David Kernow 12:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC), amended 09:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Piccadilly 13:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have years of birth for all figures listed in this category. The creator just listed articles where we don't have a specific day such as October 1 or October 2. User:Dimadick
  • Oops - well spotted! :-) Um. I retract my support (as nominator), but will leave the nomination for further discussion, as the word "historical" shouldn't be in the category name. Carcharoth 19:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "historical figures" is okay...?  David Kernow 09:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the person has no known birthdate is not notable enough for a category. --JeffW 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It simply stands in the place of the year of birth category that almost every bio article has. Twittenham 16:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd better read that again. This category is not for people who's year of birth is unknown but whose specific day of birth is unknown. --JeffW 23:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Twittenham 16:13, 11 June 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.

Surviving Wikipedia: categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most categories starting "Wikipedia:" have been renamed recently. I'm proposing to do it with the rest:

Conscious 09:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Disagree with this proposal. I can see the problems with the double namespace prefix, but I must disagree with this proposed move for semantic reasons. There are no 'Wikipedia sockpuppets'; the sockpuppets of Amy333 aren't 'Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets' but they are 'suspected sockpuppets'. While I generally approve of consistency-improving operations, I find the idea of improperly named categories harder to accept than some inconsistency. — mark ✎ 09:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that they are "Wikipedia sockpuppets" in that the same thing can happen elsewhere, but the category is only for the occurances on Wikipedia. We mostly drop the qualifier because it's clear what's being discussed, but for category names it should be explicit. Does anybody know why these were missed in the recent mass renaming? Inidently, most of the subcategories of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets seem to have become children of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets instead.
In any case, do you agree with "Alternate Wikipedia accounts..." and "Wikipedia Version 0.5"? SeventyThree(Talk) 14:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
IMO a "Wikipedia sockpuppet" is a Wikipedia account used in a specific manner, and a "sockpuppet" is this thing. Re the reason they were missed, the nomination was made on May 13, and the renaming was finished only yesterday. During most of this time template {{sockpuppet}} generated old-pattern category names. Conscious 14:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't like the new name, but I'll go with consensus here. — mark ✎ 12:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Carcharoth 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, to finish off what we started. Not that some categories have direct links to them (e.g. on here) - these need to be fixed as well. I've got a list of the pages as they were before the last nomination at User:SeventyThree/Sandbox 2, if that helps. SeventyThree(Talk) 09:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all by all means, as long as I don't have to go and replace those twenty-nine tags for User:Cooldc19 yet another time. Teke 03:41, 6 June 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:Helstar, Category:Helstar Albums and Category:Helstar Songs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Category:Helstar Albums, delete others. Vegaswikian 06:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Contain articles of a non-notable group which is on AFD itself, all have one or none article. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait until AfD concludes for "Helstar albums," and delete the empty "Helstar" and "Helstar songs" categories..--Mike Selinker 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one Helstar album, thus the category does not meet the size criteria.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 08:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no size criteria for category:Albums by artist, as noted in the category text.--Mike Selinker 17:05, 6 June 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:Åland people[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:People of Åland. Vegaswikian 23:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People of Åland or Category:Ålandic people, as using names as adjectives peculiar to U.S.

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:Åland politicians to Category:Ålandic politicians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 09:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and

Category:Åland writers to Category:Ålandic writers[edit]

To follow other "[Country adjective] + [occuptation]" categories (Category:Liberian people, Category:Brazilian politicians, etc) if "Ålandic" is the/an accepted adjectival for Åland. (I believe it to be so, but am not sure.) Otherwise suggest rename to "[Occupation]s of Åland".  David Kernow 08:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to either format as nom. David Kernow 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC), clarified 13:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "[Occupation]s of Åland" (e.g. Category:Writers of Åland). "Ålandic" is used occasionally, but I don't think it's in general use. I've seen "Ålandian" as well. At any rate, "of Åland" is surely correct. NordicStorm 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC), clarified 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assume you also mean rename Category:Åland politicans to Category:Politicans of Åland. Regards, David 13:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, clarified above. NordicStorm
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Legend of Zelda[edit]

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

The result of the debate was relist Tim! 09:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor appears to have created new categories for most - if not all - Legend of Zelda categories by including the word "The" at the start. As I can't find any reference to a previous discussion here, I assume these changes haven't been ratified at Cfd. Can editors please state whether they wish to Keep the new category names (including the word "The") or Revert to the old ones (without "The"). Thank you. Road Wizard 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some other sub-categories in Category:The Legend of Zelda games and Category:The Legend of Zelda media that do not appear to have equivalents without "The", but should probably be considered here as well. Road Wizard 10:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I made these and I wasn't exactly aware of this process. I rather wanted to get these corrected out... I saw a note regarding this naming issue on one of the talk pages for a 'Legend of Zelda' page, and that really got me started. NTDOY Fanboy 06:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Also, in line with what User:Voretus has said below, the titles should all follow the same conventions, including the main page of (The) Legend of Zelda. So really, every category should have 'The Legend of Zelda', as opposed to all with 'Legend of Zelda' or a mixed usage. NTDOY Fanboy 20:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC) There is also one more thing - I realized there could be over lap between tLoZ the game and tLoZ the series... now I think we should make them all have series in the title. NTDOY Fanboy 23:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. A paper enc. wouldn't cover most video games. NTDOY Fanboy 20:24, 3 June 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:Pop music messianism[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 06:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop music individuals who are worshipped? I think? —tregoweth (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • On first sight, this category seems to be (the beginnings of) an article...?  Regards, David Kernow 08:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - many categories could be the beginnings of overview articles! :-) Carcharoth 09:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very confusing, but looks like it could be misused, if people understood it. Hawkestone 00:09, 6 June 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:Pop culture news media[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently for news media's impact on popular culture, but that is so nebulous and subjective that a category seems unworkable. —tregoweth (talk) 05:59, 3 June 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:Adult websites[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 06:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category contained solely erotica-related websites, implying that "adult" is synonymous with "pornographic" - not very accurate, and somewhat POV. Someone created a category called "Erotica websites," to which I moved all of the articles listed under the old category. ~ Booya Bazooka 05:49, 3 June 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:Pop culture television[edit]

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

The result of the debate was never tagged and in any case no consensus Tim! 09:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently for TV shows that have had some sort of pop-culture impact, but that is so nebulous and subjective that a category seems unworkable. —tregoweth (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename: to Category:Television in popular culture and restrict the articles to those dealing with television's impact on popular culture, or a specific article on a television show's impact on popular culture. Articles on just the television show should not go into this category unless there is a section that deals heavily with this issue.
    &#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 05:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and the rest per Lady Aleena (delete most entries from new category - all kinds of TV shows are popular culture, so unless the article deals specifically with the popular culture aspect, exlude it). Outriggr 08:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and restrict use per nom and others (I also changed the blurb - use the page history to see the difference). Carcharoth 09:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you restrict use? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Twittenham 16:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Lady Aleena. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see how the alternative proposal is any better, indeed it is open to a wider range of interpretations. Honbicot 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would better to put category:television in Category:Popular culture than to preserve this arbitary category. Osomec 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for those questioning the point of this, see Category:In popular culture and its subcats. This would be one of the subcats. Outriggr 03:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the other sub-categories are around topics, this one is based around a medium. (Though they are still of very dubious value; the whole widespread usage of "popular culture" in Wikipedia seems to be a bad thing. Why separate popular culture out of "culture" when it is so subjective, and doing so encourages people to add reams of bilge to articles.)Hawkestone 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? I don't really know, but apparently to separate the "bilge" from the main articles that most of them sprung out of. If you are going to have a series of "...in popular culture" articles, they might as well be grouped together. Thus my vote. Outriggr 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment above. Hawkestone 22:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Totally unworkable. Twittenham 16:15, 11 June 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:Video and movie technology to Category:Film and video technology[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 23:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this category's name inline with other film categories. This is similar to this rename.
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 05:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Can this be speedied please?
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 21:44, 3 June 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:People of the British Virgin Islands to Category:British Virgin Islands people[edit]

Category:People of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people[edit]

Category:People of the Republic of the Congo to Category:Republic of the Congo people[edit]

Category:People of the Philippines to Category:Filipino people[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • The result of the debate was keep all Tim! 09:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to be consistent with other cat pages under Category:People by nationality (note naming of Category:Trinidad and Tobago people, Category:New Zealand people, Category:Cook Islands people) and per arguments in next nomination down Mayumashu 05:08, 3 June 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:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people (and like renaming for its sub-cats)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 23:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename all. the proposed naming style is closer to the conventional people by nationality naming convention of 'Fooian people'. (nouns commonly act as adjectives where an adjective form is not commonly used, as in Category:New Zealand people and not Category:New Zealander people. the potential adjective phrase "Bosnian and Herzegovinan", although consisting of two properly formed adjectives, seems incorrect) (will tag sub-cats later) Mayumashu 04:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all per comment in proposal above ("This use of nouns as adjectives seems to be peculiar to the U.S. ...") and rename using "People of...".  Regards, David Kernow 08:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per David Kernow. Carcharoth 10:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Better as it is. Honbicot 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The analogy used is flawed. The term "New Zealand" is the adjectival form of New Zealand. New Zealander is a noun only. Category: New Zealander people would be like having Category:Scot people for Scottish people, which is ridiculous. Grutness...wha? 07:35, 4 June 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:Actors from Montenegro[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 06:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete both empty and named unconventionally (for actors per nationality cat page) Mayumashu 04:27, 3 June 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:Lists of people speculated to fit a criteria to Category:Lists of people speculated to fit certain criteria[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Lists of people by proposed medical condition Tim! 08:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to correct grammar. Q0 04:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Medical conditions seem to the shared feature. Regards, David Kernow 09:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the latter: Difference between the condition being "on" or "off the record", reporting posthumous libel attempts, ...?  David Kernow 09:27, 10 June 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:Syncretic political movements[edit]

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

The result of the debate was relisted Tim! 08:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ambiguous categorization. Intangible 03:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've had this on my watchlist for a while, wondering what would become of it. As the nominator points out, it doesn't have a clear criteria, and the groups have little in common that readers would seek to navigate to (the point of a category). This is the political equivalent of "Category: Eccentric people". -Will Beback 10:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom KleenupKrew 14:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. On a related note: what shall we do with the Syncretic politics (an unreferenced stub looking like patent non-sense)?. I'm no political science expert, but.... Ukrained 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Five seconds spent on Google would reveal the term syncretic politics has been used in both the Nation magazine and the Village Voice, in reference to Pim Fortuyn and Andrew Sullivan. You don't have to be a poli sci expert to do a web search, right? Mjk2357 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong keep. But include a simple definition. Otherwise, where are we going to put thing such as National-Bolshevism or National-Sindicalism? I certainly would not like them put on under extreme left and would not totally fit under fascism. In all cases, someone have to go through and remove POV additions such as People's Mujaheedeen of Iran and the like. And there is definitely such as a thing as syncretic politics. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 09:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is about the Category:Syncretic political movements, not the article (which does have problems). Intangible 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that. I am talking about the stub here. E Asterion u talking to me? 16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you can give me a definition of syncretism that would give a NPOV partitioning of political movements, that would be welcome. Although I think you will fail in this. Intangible 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, you know this would be very difficult, because the whole point is that these groups accept views of traditionally opposed ideologies, obviously within different degrees. On the other hand, I could say that in most ocassions they are far right movements with a touch of "class struggle". I think we should get some expert opinion before going ahead and delete this on our own. This is my only reason to disagree. E Asterion u talking to me? 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment How is adding People's Mujaheedeen of Iran POV? Unless you think Marxism and Islamism are similar ideologies, then the group is certainly syncretic. Mjk2357 11:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Deciding on our own which movements are syncretic is original research. We should rely as much as possible on outside sources and simply report that group X "has been called 'syncretic'". Though not necessarily pejorative, I doubt any significant group uses that label for itself. Separately, I've listed all of the category entries in the article itself to see what that looks like. I think that since it's a vaguely defined term we should not use it as a category, merely as a list. -Will Beback 23:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because the basis for inclusion is not B&W is not in itself a reason to delete a category that is neither eminently "loaded" in meaning, nor original research. Don't we expect readers to be able to realize that a category can be abstract, and therefore can have contested members - yet still be useful? Far from being unhelpful to users, this is the sort of emergent, interesting categorization that should be encouraged in a large web of information. Outriggr 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Categorization derives from ontology, the way of being of things. You cannot argue that those current entries should be listed in this category and other (political) movements not, thus categorization is impossible. Intangible 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, categories are binary - if what you are trying to classify is not inherently binary, and guidelines that will govern inclusion/exclusion can not be strictly formulated, then listify instead; there, it is possible to debate various views on the extent to which entries have been considered syncretic. Just because there are some clear-cut cases for inclusion doesn't mean the category is itself clear-cut enough. TheGrappler 18:55, 6 June 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:Edge-on galaxies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Discussion about hold has been quiet for a week. Vegaswikian 06:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I don't see a need for this. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#galaxies by orientation for further discussions 132.205.45.148 03:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold until discussion finished over there. I've added comments there. Carcharoth 11:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion. Carcharoth 17:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - category based on random visual orientation as seen from Earth, not physically relatd to the galaxies in question--Kalsermar 19:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as potentially useful, e.g., for amateur astronomers. Spacepotato 08:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the categorisation system was used for all manner of arbitary classes it would balloon into a huge number of categories. We need to draw a line in the sand and this one is on the OTHER side! Alan Liefting 08:02, 6 June 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:Lists of United States ambassadors to Category:Ambassadors of the United States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was reverse merge Tim! 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: All of the articles were moved to the new category because they are more than just lists. The old category is now empty. —Markles 00:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert or Recategorize I respect the boldness of unilaterially renaming all of the "List of Ambassadors" to just "Ambassadors", but I wish you might have invited some discussion first. As it stands now, the new categorization poorly mixes *individual* ambassaors with the *position* of ambassadors. (This category was for the positions.) For that reason, I think that moving all previous items in this catgory to Category:Ambassadors of the United States was poorly thought out. I suggest that you either revert your changes or come up with an alternative categorization that makes this separation clearer. The US has ambassadorships in hundreds of countries, though Wikipedia doesn't (yet) have them all. Making them all sort on a space (to the top of that cat) is very cumbersome. JRP 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe move the United States Ambassador to Foo cats to a subcat called Category:Ambassadors of the United States by country? Of course putting them back in Category:Lists of United States ambassadors would also work. Vegaswikian 02:31, 3 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_3&oldid=1108829856"