Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 11
[edit]Category:Wikipedians interested in Dungeons & Dragons
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was speedy delete — creator's request ×Meegs 09:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians interested in Dungeons & Dragons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, I created this category after not finding anything similar on the Category:Wikipedians by interest. I then almost instantly discovered the well-populated Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons as a sub-category of Category:Wikipedians interested in games, where it clearly belongs. Oops. mordicai. 23:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Wikipedians who play Dungeons & Dragons, per nom. - jc37 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - The category is empty AND it has been nominated for deletion by its author, both criteria for speedy deletion. —Cswrye 19:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Singers by gender
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 15:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Singers by gender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per Wikipedia gender neutral policy. If not already in another subcat of Category:Singers then merge into Category:Singers. Defining them by instrument, nationality, range and style are better characteristics to use. Vegaswikian 20:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per [1] and use the entries in it to re-categorize as needed. Otto4711 21:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that gender is a better characteristic to use then instrument, nationality, range and style? I would also argue that Category:Singers by range effectively splits by gender without using male or female as the criteria so the gender category is over classification and not needed. Vegaswikian 23:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First, Category:Singers by range and its sub cats should be listified. Second, range does not necessarily always equate to gender. - jc37 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia gender neutral policy. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Men and women have different voices and Category:Singers by range is of little applicability outside the classical field. Hoylake 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - However, despite my comments above, since we deleted actresses, then this should be deleted. If we had kept actresses, I would have said keep these. The concept is very nearly the same (throughout history). If in the future actresses gains consensus, then so should these, and vice-versa (if these are kept than I propose that actresses should be re-created). - jc37 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A bad call being done before doesn't mean we have to keep doing bad calls. Wikipedia is not consistent and never will be. Still I respect your vote.
- Keep, Female and male singers have different voices. It's important to make the distinction. --musicpvm 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per musicpvm and Hoylake. This is not like a female bank clerks category, but one of the cases where gender has a very direct bearing on the nature of the job; it's not just a matter of range, but also of the gendered roles of singers. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Neutrality says "Use gender-neutral category names, unless there is a distinct reason and consensus to do otherwise. In that case, please specify the reason on the category page, and record the consensus on its associated discussion page." I think that deletion of the female actors category was a sad mistake, but we don't have to be bound by precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Gender is relevant here. In sound, song selection, history, and even where the person is placed in some choirs. Or what choirs they can even join. Granted gender or sex being significant has rarely stopped deletion before, but maybe now that trend has burned itself out.--T. Anthony 12:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, probably a recreation. Catting by gender is not useful here. (Radiant) 13:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no re-creation. Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers have been around since June 2004. --musicpvm 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No-one has tried to explain why it is not useful. Twittenham 15:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but the rationale (explained well enough above) should be made more visible on the category page, to forstall future nominations (I made such a nomination a while back; it was a mistake then, and it's a mistake now). JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women in comics
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women in comics into Category: Comics writers
- Merge per Wikipedia gender neutral policy. Current name is also a bit confusing. Vegaswikian 20:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a useful distinction in an industry that's still very male-dominated, not to mention, are all of the people listed even writers? Otto4711 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you are saying to delete since the category is ambiguous? Exactly what occupation is covered by this category? Vegaswikian 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, um, no, I'm saying Keep. K-E-E-P does not spell delete. As far as what occupations the cat covers, how about pencillers, inkers, letterers, colorists and editors, to start with? Otto4711 01:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you are saying to delete since the category is ambiguous? Exactly what occupation is covered by this category? Vegaswikian 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Unlike singing gender is of little relevance in this field. Hoylake 00:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree that this violates Wikipedia's gender-neutral policy (unless someone also wants to create a Category:Men in comics). I also do not think that merging to another category is useful since, as pointed out above, it is unclear whether the article refers to writers, pencillers, inkers, letterers, publishers, salespeople, CEOs, comic book store owners, etc. George J. Bendo 16:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, catting by gender is not useful here either. (Radiant) 13:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Supporters of Plaid Cymru
[edit]Category:Supporters of the Scottish National Party
[edit]Category:Supporters of the British Liberal Democrats
[edit]Category:Supporters of the British Labour Party
[edit]Category:Supporters of the British Conservative Party
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Supporters of Plaid Cymru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Supporters of the Scottish National Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Supporters of the British Liberal Democrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Supporters of the British Labour Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Supporters of the British Conservative Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Vague categories with no criteria. What's a supporter?
Is it someone who donates money? (if so how much?).
If someone says that party x is not quite as bad as the other bunch of {expletive deleted}s, does that make them a supporter?
How often do you need to vote for a party to become a supporter? etc. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As far as I was concerned, the word "Supporter" can be defined in any way you like. I use the word in its broadest possible sense. We all interpret things in different ways. I don't seem to be having much luck creating categories! I will therefore not be creating any again. I'm sticking to articles from now on. Dovea 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Category:Supporters of the Scottish National Party appeared to be plausible, content-wise, but I didn't notice anything in Arthur Lowe which explains his appearance in Category:Supporters of the British Conservative Party. Perhaps a bit vague. No opinion on what to do at this time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Arthur Lowe is noted as a Conservative on the Clive Dunn article. Dovea 21:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But what exactly does that mean? Did he just hold Conservative views (which clashed with Dunn's Socialist views), was he an admitted Conservative voter, or even a member of the party, or did he campaign for the party/do fundraiser events? Timrollpickering 23:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Arthur Lowe is noted as a Conservative on the Clive Dunn article. Dovea 21:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I questioned the validity of these categories on creation, as individuals seem to move over time from one party to another as power shifts between parties. Hence, if some gives to two parties, do they sit in both categories - and what constitutes support of a party: £100, £5000, a positive media comment, etc. And what happens if they have given support to a party, and then come out with a negative comment? I can't see these categories as a clear encyclopedic criteria for definition. Probably a good list. Rgds, - Trident13 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "Support" is a vague term. Does this mean voting for a party, being a member of a party, donating money to a party, or something else? A category entitled "Members of the British Wood Party" would be useful because individuals have to register with the party (or whatever the British equivalent is), which is a clear criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the category. A category entitled "Supporters of the British Wood Party", however, is not as clear since several ill-defined criteria could be used to indicate that individuals belong in the category. These categories therefore should be deleted. George J. Bendo 20:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are articles for supporters of U.S. Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps creating articles or renaming the category in some way would be better. Only a relatively small number of celebrities seem to reveal their chosen party and some are life-long supporters. I still think there's a case for keeping this information in some capacity. Dovea 21:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't find the US categories (maybe they were deleted). Can you provide links?
It seems to me that a list would be an appropriate way of retaining this information, because it would allow a brief explanation of the nature of the support (e.g. X donated £100,000; Y appeared on a party political broadcast; Fred the taxi driver once gave his Liberal councillor a free lift to the station). But I still think that even a list needs to start with some definition of what is to be counted as support. Is the list only for celebrities, or can my neighbour who's no celebrity but a lifelong cheerleader for the Conservatives, appear on it too? Unless those definitions are clarified at the outset, a list would probably make its way to AFD rather quickly, so some planning is needed. Sorry if that's offputting, but it's not intended to be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't find the US categories (maybe they were deleted). Can you provide links?
- Delete It is my understanding that in the U.S. being a "registered" member of a party is quite a big deal because of the primary system, but in the UK party membership is a private affair and information on which non-politicians belong to political parties is not generally available. Hoylake 00:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "supporters/critics of x" categories, which require citations/references, which isn't possible to do in a category in this case. - jc37 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal - see User:Pitchka/Republican Celebrities Page and List of Democrat celebrities. Can we create similar articles for British political parties? Dovea 09:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The List of Democrat celebrities also has problems, and I would not want to see the list copied for other parties. The list is unreferenced, and I am uncertain as to whether to believe it. For example, when did John Cleese or J. K. Rowling endorse the Democratic Party? Also, some of the problems with the above categories as well as some additional problems apply to this list. What happens when a celebrity switches party affiliations or dies? (I notice that Richard Pryor is on the list.) What if a celebrity only endorses a single Democratic candidate? Moreover, what qualifies a person as being a celebrity? Does being a politician qualify a person as a celebrity? Does Thomas Jefferson qualify for the list? (I almost think that the page is worth nominating for deletion.) George J. Bendo 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - George J. Bendo, there are deceased names in the categories, and some who have supported more than one party (Sir John Mills is a classic example). Neither of these are an issue to me personally. To be honest, BrownHairedGirl, a person would have to be reasonably well-known to have an article in their name on Wikipedia at any rate (the only taxi-driver with an article I can think of is Geoffrey Hayes) - so anyone with the exception of politicians ought to be eligible and could be described as a celebrity. As I have already mentioned, only a small proportion of celebrities actually disclose their political allegiance - so in that respect, upkeep would not be a big problem either. If there is any doubt as to whether anyone is an actual supporter of a party, their name could be removed from the categories - but there are definitely people out there who definitely do strongly support political parties, such as Sean Connery. Such people ought to stay in the list and that's why I think these categories are valid enough to be kept. Dovea 20:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have listed List of Democrat celebrities as an article for deletion. The debate is located here. If the Republican equivalent was a Wikipedia article instead of a user page, I would have tagged that as well. George J. Bendo 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, do not cat people by their opinion. (Radiant) 13:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely they are political affiliations rather than opinions. Dovea 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, too vage a concept - is it just openly voting, party membership, donating, actively campaigning or what? Timrollpickering 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- New proposal - how about changing the category names to People who have endorsed the UK XXX Party. All included names would require citations. How about that?? Or can anyone think of a better word than "supporters" or "endorsed"? Dovea 19:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Endorse" has the same problems as "support". This would not change my decision. George J. Bendo 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - If anyone can think of a more appropriate word we could use instead of just deleting the categories, that would be great. Dovea 09:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Endorse" has the same problems as "support". This would not change my decision. George J. Bendo 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Canadian air marshals
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian air marshals to Category:Royal Canadian Air Force air marshals
- Rename, Rename to more precise description. People who were born in Canada, hold Canadian citizenship, etc, might have been Royal Air Force air marshals (or air marshals in another air force). This renaming makes it clear on what basis the air marshals are being categorized and fits in with other air marshal categories (eg Category:Indian Air Force air marshals. Greenshed 17:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Twittenham 15:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:RIANZ number-one singles
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:RIANZ number-one singles to Category:Number-one singles in New Zealand
- Rename, for consistency with the other subcategories of Category:Number-one singles. Extraordinary Machine 17:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Catharus thrushes
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Catharus thrushes to Category:Catharus
- Rename, to keep in line with SOP for bird genus categories (which is genus-name only). Dysmorodrepanis 16:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't want to vote against consistency, but SOP seems ill-advised when it is to have names that only experts will understand. Piccadilly 20:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with Piccadilly, and I would also like to take a neutral stand on this name change. I have problems differentiating among Category:Alethes, Category:Myadestes, and Category:Zoothera because I do not know what the scientific names refer to. If I want to look up thrushes, do I look in any of these categories? I would end up looking through all of them and getting frustrated with Wikipedia's classification system. The astronomical equivalent would be if I created "Category:SAbc galaxies", "Category:SABbc galaxies", and "Category:SBbc galaxies" within "Category:Sbc galaxies". If the average user is trying to find galaxies similar to the Whirlpool Galaxy, where would he or she look in these hypothetical categories? The scientific classifications would hinder the average user who has not learned the details of the Hubble sequence. George J. Bendo 20:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, whatever happened to the idea of using common names? Do we really expect common users to form latin plurals? -- ProveIt (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because categorization of living beings is most practically done following their taxonomy,with optional use of common names (When I first categorized birds, I actually tried to use common names as much as possible, but they were later all renamed, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Categories and other archived discussions). category:thrushes would includes species from several genera, and redirects to category:turdidae. Plants are now being similarly categorized too. Circeus 16:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While I like the idea of the latin classification due to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), we also (as noted above) need to use the "more common name". It's almost as if we need category disambiguation pages ("Thrushes:"). At the very least, we need some redirects involved. And an "index" somewhere on Wikipedia would be helpful as well. (Hoping to find out that one exists already : ) - jc37 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The existing name includes the desired name and is more useful for the general reader. Twittenham 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Giant diffuse galaxies
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Giant diffuse galaxies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete - The term can be used to describe galaxies, but other terms ("giant elliptical galaxies" and "giant lenticular galaxies") are more accurate descriptions and more frequently applied. I would suggest moving this to "Category: Giant elliptical galaxies" except that the division between "normal" elliptical galaxies and "giant" elliptical galaxies is ill-defined. I therefore recommend removing the category. George J. Bendo 08:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How about making this a redirect? - jc37 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to Category:Elliptical galaxies may be appropriate, although I do not imagine anyone recreation a category with this same name. People simply do not use the phrase "giant diffuse galaxy" very often. George J. Bendo 08:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think a redirect would be appropriate. 132.205.44.128 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain? cD galaxies are elliptical galaxies. George J. Bendo 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it exists it should be a real category, and not a redirect. It's a subcategory of ellipticals, so it should not exist as a redirect. Categoryredirects should only be used for equivalencies not subcategorization. 132.205.93.31 04:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that logic. George J. Bendo 14:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it exists it should be a real category, and not a redirect. It's a subcategory of ellipticals, so it should not exist as a redirect. Categoryredirects should only be used for equivalencies not subcategorization. 132.205.93.31 04:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain? cD galaxies are elliptical galaxies. George J. Bendo 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think a redirect would be appropriate. 132.205.44.128 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to Category:Elliptical galaxies may be appropriate, although I do not imagine anyone recreation a category with this same name. People simply do not use the phrase "giant diffuse galaxy" very often. George J. Bendo 08:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aren't giant diffuse galaxies galaxies classified as type gE (Giant Elliptical), cD and D (D galaxies) ? 132.205.44.128 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, giant diffuse galaxies are classified as type cD (if I am correctly interpreting the intentions of the category's creator). However, these are a subset of elliptical galaxies (see Binney & Merrifield's Galactic Astronomy Section 4.3). Looking at Binney & Merrifield, it appears that cD galaxies are defined by a clear quantitative criteria; the galaxies light profiles deviated from a de Vaucouleurs light profile at large radii (i.e. the outer regions of the galaxy look brighter than normal). This means that they could be clearly separated from ordinary elliptical galaxies in a categorization scheme. However, the term "giant diffuse galaxy" is not an accurate term for these galaxies; the category would need to be renamed Category:cD Galaxies. This would be an acceptable alternative, but it becomes unwieldly to implement in Wikipedia (because of the lower case c), and the phrase is too technical (see the discussion on bird categories above). The alternative would be to rename the category Category:Giant elliptical galaxies, but then this could contain galaxies that are not cD galaxies (see my earlier comments). It is probably easier just to delete the category until Wikipedians really demand the category. George J. Bendo 09:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We seem to be missing an article on the de Vaucouleurs extension to the Hubble sequence. 132.205.44.134 23:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, the cD classification is not part of the de Vaucouleurs extension of the Hubble sequence. de Vaucouleurs introduced the r and s subclassifications for spiral galaxies. Except for the name, these classifications are unrelated to the de Vaucouleurs light profile for elliptical galaxies. George J. Bendo 01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant we seem to also be missing de Vaucouleurs , in addition to Morgan/Yerkes. (... We seem to be missing an article describing cD galaxies ...) 132.205.44.128 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we are missing an article on cD galaxies, but because of Wikipedia's problems with capitalization, I do not want to be the dork to create the article "CD galaxies". People would laugh at me at work. George J. Bendo 10:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant we seem to also be missing de Vaucouleurs , in addition to Morgan/Yerkes. (... We seem to be missing an article describing cD galaxies ...) 132.205.44.128 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, the cD classification is not part of the de Vaucouleurs extension of the Hubble sequence. de Vaucouleurs introduced the r and s subclassifications for spiral galaxies. Except for the name, these classifications are unrelated to the de Vaucouleurs light profile for elliptical galaxies. George J. Bendo 01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We seem to be missing an article on the de Vaucouleurs extension to the Hubble sequence. 132.205.44.134 23:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, giant diffuse galaxies are classified as type cD (if I am correctly interpreting the intentions of the category's creator). However, these are a subset of elliptical galaxies (see Binney & Merrifield's Galactic Astronomy Section 4.3). Looking at Binney & Merrifield, it appears that cD galaxies are defined by a clear quantitative criteria; the galaxies light profiles deviated from a de Vaucouleurs light profile at large radii (i.e. the outer regions of the galaxy look brighter than normal). This means that they could be clearly separated from ordinary elliptical galaxies in a categorization scheme. However, the term "giant diffuse galaxy" is not an accurate term for these galaxies; the category would need to be renamed Category:cD Galaxies. This would be an acceptable alternative, but it becomes unwieldly to implement in Wikipedia (because of the lower case c), and the phrase is too technical (see the discussion on bird categories above). The alternative would be to rename the category Category:Giant elliptical galaxies, but then this could contain galaxies that are not cD galaxies (see my earlier comments). It is probably easier just to delete the category until Wikipedians really demand the category. George J. Bendo 09:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:High schools in in Nassau County, New York
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was speedy delete per creator request. No prejudice towards a new category. ×Meegs 09:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:High schools in in Nassau County, New York
- I created this thinking it was a good idea and included an excess word in the category name. Now that I think of it, it should probably be altogether deleted. Paul 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename to Category:High schools in Nassau County, New York - Why delete a category when a rename will work? Nassau County probably contains some notable high schools, so the category will probably be populated over time. George J. Bendo 08:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as G7 authors request. Vegaswikian 23:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Protestants by country
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 15:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Protestants by country to Category:Protestants by nationality
- Rename, to match Category:Christians by nationality and its other subcategories. Piccadilly 03:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose keep as is; instead, rename the other categories to '... by country'. 'Nationality' is an obsolete idea; 'country' is used throughout WP for other such categories. Hmains 19:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first point is a pure POV and your second is misleading as "Nationality" is used in Category:People by nationality and many other places. Piccadilly 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take exception to your labeling: it does not advance a discussion. See Nationality for relevant discussion. See also Category:Categories by nationality vs Category:Categories by country. Most of the 'Nationality' categories could well be renamed to be 'Country' categories, since they are at the legal country level, not at the sub-country or cross-country nationality level. On the other hand, there might be an argument that 'people' are to be categorized 'by nationality' while everything else is categorized 'by country'. This is not clear. Hmains 17:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I take exception to your arrogant dismissal of my well-meaning contribution. jc37 seems to think I have advanced the discussion. Piccadilly 06:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Hoylake
- Support nom, per Piccadilly's comments above. - jc37 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom in line with the convention for categories of people. Twittenham 15:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- rename per nom, agreeing with Twittenham Hmains 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.