Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 19
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < October 18 | October 20 > |
|---|
October 19
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or rename to Category:Rape hoaxes, seems like overcategorization to me ... -- ProveIt (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:V is obviously difficult in cases such as this. At best we have rapes where no charges were brought or rapes where the accused was found not guilty of the crime as defined and charged. --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment on verifiability Actually it's possible to have a case where an alleged rape victim is later found to have lied about the incident and is in fact convicted of perjury and/or filing false police reports. I think, but can't verify off hand, there was just such a case in New York a few years ago. Either way, though, you theoretically can have verifiable instances of someone being convicted of perpetrating a hoax. Dugwiki 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep saying no one has ever made a false claim of rape is ridiculous. Granted it's not the norm, but it does happen. I personally know of such a case. Rlevse 18:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the only entry is a person, not an article about a hoax. Such an accusation requires citations/references, which cannot be done in categories. - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:NGC 6703 group
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NGC 6703 group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - The creator (HurricaneDevon) added no useful references on this group. After checking the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database as well as catalogs of galaxy groups by Fouque et al. (1992), Garcia (1993), and Giuricin et al. (2000), I was unable to find any information on a "NGC 6703 Group". The only reference that list NGC 6703 as belonging to a group is the Nearby Galaxy Catalog, but the catalog lists another galaxy as the brightest member, so according to standard group naming conventions, the group would be named after this other galaxy instead of NGC 6703. Since galaxy group identification can be difficult (see the discussions on the Sombrero Galaxy or NGC 4631 Group pages), confirmation of the identification of this group would be preferable. Anyhow, the main page for this category does not exist (and probably should not be created). The articles formerly in the category were not members of the same group as NGC 6703 according to the Nearby Galaxies Catalog, so I removed them from the category. The category should probably be deleted until additional observational studies validate the existance of the NGC 6703 Group. George J. Bendo 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Julian Cannonball Adderley 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 section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Julian Cannonball Adderley albums to Category:Cannonball Adderley albums
- Rename, Cannonball Adderley is and was commonly called by his nickname. See fellow jazzers Sonny Rollins and Dizzy Gillespie for precedent. Also note the covers of all three albums in the category say "Cannonball Adderley". – flamurai (t) 22:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional personifications of evil
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. List consisting of category's curent membership begun at List of personifications of evil in fiction. David Kernow (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional personifications of evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, definition of "personification" is nebulous at best, most listed are metaphorical, symbolic, allegorical, or just evil. Largely unnecessary. Eyrian 19:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Eyrian. Wibbble 20:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and because entries are likely going to be original research. Postdlf 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete undefined category involving both OR and POV. Wryspy 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Users continue to not grasp the point of the category. Maintaining it is not worth the trouble. 129.89.191.226 05:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, would make a useful article, but not best done in the category structure. Hiding Talk 09:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Kind of get the gist of what they want, but it's not well defined. Would make a better article than a category. Dugwiki 17:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - edit Darth Vader and look at the category list. (You should find this category commented out, with a note.) I presume similar situations exist elsewhere. - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and create article Personifications of evil in fiction because characters such as The First Evil, The Source (Charmed) and Dahak are actually personifications of evil and it is a commonly used villain type, and would be interesting to link to on Devil in fiction.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Charlotte metropolitan area, duplicate. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom, standard wording. --Dhartung | Talk 08:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Looking at the category, I think this was intended to be a "List" rather than a category. When merging, make sure that the entries in the category introduction are also merged. - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Baltic Political parties
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete'. David Kernow (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Baltic Political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Caucasian Political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete these are subcategories of the item listed below. All such slicings-up of Europe are tinged with POV, and likely to be more relevant to some periods of history than to others. Category:Political parties in Europe does the job. Hawkestone 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there are different possible definitions for the area but these have little relevance to the parties. --Dhartung | Talk 08:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. That would be the same as to have Category:Political Parties of North America (that is, including Mexico and the smaller states down). Pavel Vozenilek 15:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Former USSR area Political parties
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Former USSR area Political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
DeleteIt generally makes little sense to organise categories on the basis of defunct entities, and this one is positively misleading as few of the parties involved operated in the USSR. Hawkestone 15:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Totally backward system of organization. Connecting political parties of modern nations by vague notions of previous dominion is dubious at best. --Eyrian 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, are the Tories a Former Roman Empire area political party? --Dhartung | Talk 08:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absurd classification. There are artiles like Sąjūdis and several Popular Fronts that could be categorised together in USSR context but what I see now is wrong. Pavel Vozenilek 15:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Glenn Curtiss, convention of Category:Categories named after people, and to match Glenn Curtiss. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Rename per convention. - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:City of God characters, convention of Category:Film characters. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Rename per convention. - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. David Kernow (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:WikiProject Baywatch, convention of Category:WikiProject Television, and to match Wikipedia:WikiProject Baywatch. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Rename - per convention - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Musicians who play left-handed
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Musicians who play left-handed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete This doesn't connect people in any meaningful way. Category:Left-handed people has been deleted previously. Honbicot 14:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy, we've seen it before. >Radiant< 14:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy per >Radiant<. Vegaswikian 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but not all people play guitar right-handed.
- Delete - This would be an interesting list, but not a good idea for a category. - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify per jc37's suggestion. AgentPeppermint 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ndrly - Why don't we just reduce this to guitarists who play left-handed.
- 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:Pureblood Families
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename to Pureblood families in the Harry Potter series. David Kernow (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pureblood Families to Category:Fictional families of pure wizard blood in Harry Potter novels
- Rename, for disambiguation and clarity. It seems a marginally useful category. Sorry about the suggested name: I toyed with other suggestions for renaming (such as "Fictional wizarding families of pure blood"), but none of them was unambiguous enough. In my view the title has to mention Harry Potter novels, and that the families are fictional. RobertG ♬ talk 14:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as overly specific. >Radiant< 14:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Pureblood families in the Harry Potter books Honbicot 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - too specific, non-categorical. If anything, make it a list (and I would dispute even that). Anthony Hit me up... 18:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; Wizcruft. -choster 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Pureblood families in the Harry Potter books. The Harry Potter category needs subdivision due to its size. Sumahoy 22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If kept, a rename is needed. Cast my vote for whatever option has the most votes at closing. Vegaswikian 22:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Pureblood families in the Harry Potter books. Regardless of whether one thinks there should be hundreds of HP articles, there are hundreds of HP articles, so subcategories are necessary. Nonomy 13:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to category:Pureblood families in the Harry Potter series. (I think "series" is preferrable, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#series.) - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:World boxing champions ... looks like a duplicate to me. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No it is not. The whole area of boxing is a mess, including the fighters, the weights, the organisations, the champions, the contenders. If you look at it in a little more depth, you will see that I am in the process of sorting it all out into a consistent and systematic structure. Look at my list of contributions for a start. It is a slow process as many of the articles are written in pidgin English and are at variance with normal Wikipedia standards, and many are needing a total re-write. The present category "World boxing champions" has all sorts in it, wheras "World Champion boxers" will have only the men. I have also created a category which will list all the champions split by weight, and one which will split them by organisation. Add to that there are separate categories, for example "Super bantamweight" and "Junior featherweight", which are the same weight division and the allocation is inconsistent depending upon who wrote (or edited) the original article. Eventually it will be possible to have one list which will split by weight and/or organisation, but that is a step further along the road. Meanwhile, the job is easier if you leave "World Champion boxers" as it is: it is expanding, "World boxing champions" is shrinking. When I have done all the men, I will look at what is left in "World boxing champions" and reallocate them more sensibly, and the category will disappear. It is a big job, really it has to be a one-man job to ensure consistency, I am doing it, I am about a quarter of the way through it, starting from the lightest and working up. Just trust me, and be patient, I assure you it will be worth it in the end. Guy 01:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. This is an arbitary and personal distinction that will not be understood. Guy if this is a typical example of the quality of your judgement on category names and attributes, please reconsider whether categorisation work is something you should be doing. Please do not split the champions by organisation, as that is much better covered by lists. Calsicol 13:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at what you are doing and I really wish you hadn't started. All of your new categories breach Wikipedia's capitalisation policy, almost none of them mention that boxing is the sport in question, and you have already made those ill-advised by organisation categories. Calsicol 13:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. This attempt to rename a category without coming here breaches etiquette.Piccadilly 19:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is there a reason that both categories group different world championship titles together in the same category rather than having sub-cats? - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- RENAME - Category:Comptrollers to Category:Comptrollers in the United States this +cat is for US comptrollers. Octopus-Hands 09:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename George J. Bendo 23:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Rename per nom, and convention. - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Radio frequency antennas, since Category:Antennas are for all frequencies. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think I am not understanding the distinctions, can you explain? - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Merge. The articles apppear to be about a specific type of antenna that has its own category rather then the larger group of antennas which are not yet numerous enough to require breakout into other subcats. If it was not for the subcat, this would be a speedy merge. Vegaswikian 05:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or at least rename to Category:African American reality television participants. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—completely unnecessary and irrelevant subcategory. Postdlf 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. Sumahoy 22:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --musicpvm 07:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If kept, at least Speedy rename to "African-American" (note hyphen). - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Railway loop lines, or delete. Current name is a little unclear. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not sure that we need a category for rail lines that loop around a city. I thought this was used as described in BMT Brooklyn Loops. Is there a RR expert around? I'm willing to change my vote with some expert input. Vegaswikian 06:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename or delete per nom. (Railroad loop lines, Railroad loops, Railway loops...?) David Kernow (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Railway loop lines per nom. At least some, like the Yamanote Line and the Circle Line are culturally significant in the same way The Beltway or the Garden Ring are, for which we have Category:Orbital roads. -choster 13:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom & choster. --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- rename. My first thought was that it related to Chicago 'L' lines that connect to the Loop, but then thought that since they all do, that would be a bit redundant. The proposed Category:Railway loop lines sounds reasonable to me. Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Loop railway lines per other examples at Category:Railway lines. - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Poisons, plural form, and simple is better. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Rename per nom. - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or at least rename to Category:American Christian conservatism. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge back into Category:Christian fundamentalism. Don't rename as "Christian conservatism" can mean something significantly different.--T. Anthony 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or upmerge per above. David Kernow (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; a list of figures associated with the Christian right in the U.S. is far better because the definitions can be controversial. Simple upmerging is unsuitable as Santorum is Catholic and Dobson more of an evangelical than a fundamentalist. -choster 18:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. --Eyrian 20:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or Upmerge, if necessary). Oppose rename. - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Fictional people from California, convention of Category:Fictional Americans by place. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as I mentioned on the Arkansas nom from a day or two ago, "characters" might be more appropriate than "people." For demons and robots and animals and stuff. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 03:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe non-human notables merit their own category/ies...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think something like "Fictional robots from California" would be getting into overcategorization, big time. Especially if "Fictional characters from California" and "Fictional robots" already exist/ed. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe non-human notables merit their own category/ies...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Fiction characters from California, per HKM. I think that the whole of Category:Fictional Americans by place should be changed to follow that standard. - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tree City USA cities
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tree City USA cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This falls into the same reasoning as nominating Category:World cities, from categories, if we added a special category for how every possible club, group, organization lists cities, we'd have an unnavigable category list. - Marc Averette 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Honbicot 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delette Arbor Day awards cities through a very strict and specific process. It is not ambiguous and awards are not just handed out to any city who asks. Marc's reasoning could very well leave Wikipedia with policies that limit what an encyclopedia does. What does this reasoning say for many other categories just because one may not be interested. One might argue that Marc Averette lives in a city that is NOT a tree city and that may be his reasoning. Noles1984 21:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This looks like a useful list, although the Tree City USA article should be linked to the category. George J. Bendo 23:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I see this as somewhat like the sister-cities programs ... interesting, but not a defining characteristic of a city. Plus, according to their website, there are actually thousands of these. No objection to keeping the category, if it contained list articles such as Tree City USA cities in Florida, Tree City USA cities in Arizona, etc. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify, this is not an inherent characteristic of the category members. This should be handled by a list (as I understand you're named, and you stay on it). --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify The question here isn't whether or not the Arbor Day awards are useful or prestigious. It's that there are many, many awards and articles and organizations out there naming various cities for particular awards. You can't, though, have one category per award because if you did then you could end up with city articles having an overflow of award-related categories. Instead, the award should be mentioned in the city's article, and a list article created that lists all award winners. That would suffice to allow readers to cross-index cities who have won specific awards and also see which awards a city has won, without the need to create unique categories for specific awards. Dugwiki 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a defining characteristic. musicpvm 07:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - If Nobel laureates can have a category... : ) - jc37 10:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Dugwiki Wibbble 17:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.