Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 9
[edit]Category:Earls of Anglo-Saxon England
[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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Earls of Anglo-Saxon England to Category:Anglo-Saxon earls
- Rename, because none of these people ruled the whole of Anglo-Saxon England, the kings did that (well a few of them did). I have previously successfully nominated some subcategories of peers by place for deletion as the post-medieval peerage is non-territorial, but I don't believe that applies to the Anglo-Saxon period, so the subcategories are probably acceptable. Carina22 21:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Were there Anglo-Saxon earls outside of England - in Wales, for example? --Charlene 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. I'm sure there can't have been any Anglo-Saxon Earls in Wales because non-conquest by the Anglo-Saxons was what created Wales out of part of Ancient Britain. Wimstead 01:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename seems slightly fussy, but logical. --Dweller 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- rename to match Category:Anglo-Saxon people Merchbow 09:12, 10 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:Flash video games
[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 merge with Computer and video games based on DC Comics per Postdlf. David Kernow (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Flash video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
One starring role and several cameos isn't enough to justify a category for him. RobJ1981 20:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Computer and video games based on DC Comics. Whomever keeps arbitrarily categorizing video games that feature multiple characters as if they just had one needs to explain themselves. Postdlf 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Doczilla 07:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Merchbow 09:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Wow, I thought that category title meant games made out of Adobe Flash. You can't have that kind of ambiguity.--Mike Selinker 18:09, 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:Birthplaces of United States vice-presidents
[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Birthplaces of United States vice-presidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Listify and delete, per precedent on similar category for U.S. presidential birthplaces. Postdlf 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Important in relation to the people, but much less so in relation to the places. Landolitan 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent. Wilchett 01:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/listify, trivia for a cat. >Radiant< 09:26, 10 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:Starman villains
[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. David Kernow (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Starman villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another useless categorization of fictional comic book characters by who they fought. Delete per many, many other CfD decisions about overcategorization. CovenantD 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—as this is one of many "X villains" categories for both DC and Marvel characters, do you have something specific against this one, or against them generally? If the latter, you should do a mass nom to tackle them all at once. Postdlf 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Half of Starman's villians have fought many other heroes, and they aren't in those categories. ThuranX 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for overcategorization, per strong precedent. Doczilla 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete / listify, overcat. >Radiant< 09:26, 10 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:Anti-French sentiment
[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. David Kernow (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anti-French sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- An underpopulated character that could be abused.--T. Anthony 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It contains as much as it could without straying into POV territory and the two articles can be linked to one another (if they are not already) rendering the category redundant. Landolitan 20:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Awful. Give this 5 minutes and it'll be POV city. --Dweller 08:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, POV. >Radiant< 09:26, 10 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.
Explorers by century
[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 per nom plus hyphens between first two words (adjectivals). David Kernow (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Explorers of the 15th Century to Category:15th century explorers, conventions of Category:15th century.
- Category:Explorers of the 16th Century to Category:16th century explorers, conventions of Category:16th century.
- Rename to match respective conventions. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little skeptical of categorizing people by century overall, but rename per nom. The current name sounds more like we're talking about time travellers ("Doctor Who explored throughout the 15th century!") than explorers who lived during that period. Postdlf 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess "Explorers of the Xth century" can also be read as involving time-travel, so either formulation is context-dependent... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Merchbow 09:13, 10 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.
- 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 and protect. David Kernow (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, see discussions of October 20th and November 2nd. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as recreation. Nonomy 20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as recreation and protect. Postdlf 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and protect. We can't endlessly have the same argument over and over and over again. It's hard enough keeping the main Polymath article in some kind of consensus. --Dweller 08:36, 10 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.
- 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. David Kernow (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or at least Rename to Category:University shootings. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is the category only supposed to be for shootings at universities done by government officials of some stripe (National Guard, police) or would an article like Charles Whitman be appropriate? Otto4711 04:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to the need for the question above : ) - jc37 00:20, 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.
- 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. David Kernow (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Triple guitar musical groups. Is this a defining characteristic? -- ProveIt (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 09:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - jc37 00:20, 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.
- 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 merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Tunisian Jews, convention of Category:Jews by country. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- merge per nom Hmains 19:24, 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.
- 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Schedule III controlled substances, convention of Category:United States controlled substances law. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
for deletion. Cloachland 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Schedule I controlled substances is nominated for deletion.
- Category:Schedule II controlled substances is nominated for deletion.
- Category:Schedule III controlled substances is nominated for deletion.
- Category:Schedule IV controlled substances is nominated for deletion.
- Category:Schedule V controlled substances is nominated for deletion.
- Category:Schedule VI controlled substances is nominated for deletion.
- Delete both Please do not classify substances that are available worldwide by U.S. law. If they are classified by U.S. law, why not Canadian law. If by Canadian why not Jamaican? If Jamaican, why not Andorran? Cloachland 02:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional deletion nominations All 6 U.S. centric categories are now nominated for deletion. These are not U.S. only substances, so lists are the way to go to avoid U.S. bias in Wikipedia. Cloachland 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the future, please make your own nominations, rather than modifying one of mine. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, this was very confusing to encounter as a voter. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the future, please make your own nominations, rather than modifying one of mine. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, per Cloachland -- ProveIt (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose - These are definitely encyclopedic. However, they should be renamed to include "U.S." in the category names, per all the other "by nation" categories. - jc37 03:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per Cloachland. There's no basis for choosing any one country's classification system for categorizing drug articles, and choosing them all is madness. RE: jc37's comment, do other countries use the "Schedule X" designation? Postdlf 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per Cloachland and prior CFD (of Category:Over-the-counter substances). The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is the only international standard that makes sense to use if there must be categories. It seems like a bad idea for Wikipedia to try to keep up with changes in that or the US schedules. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I noticed these before and the parent cat is Category:United States controlled substances law so they are US categories and not unspecific ones. Also the cat intros on the one I checked state under US law. So these are different then the previous deletes and in fact seem to correct the problems pointed out. If the problem is the lack of 'United States' in the category name then do a rename and not a delete. Vegaswikian 06:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Vegaswikian is missing the point. The problem is that the existence of these categories is based on an assumption that U.S. law is more relevant than other law, which to 95% of the world it isn't. This is systemic bias and there are only two ways to deal with it: put some of these substances in 200 or so national categories, or delete these categories. As the former option would create massive category clutter it has to be the latter. Merchbow 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, systemic bias. >Radiant< 09:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify - This would make for a good list article, but if every country's drug regulation scheme were adopted you'd end up with possibly hundreds of categories per drug article, one per country's classification. Therefore convert the US categories into corresponding list articles. Dugwiki 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify as per Dugwiki. If allowed, this would get as bad as bit-part actors with numerous tags. Rgds, - Trident13 19:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify - George J. Bendo 22:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify Do we really want the article on heroin to be categorised by its classification under every country's laws? It will be even worse than categorising actos by films. Bluap 17:02, 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.
- 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Housing cooperatives in Madison, Wisconsin, or suggest something else. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. Merchbow 09:17, 10 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:Women's professional sports
[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 merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women's professional sports into Category:Women's sports
- Merge, Attempting to separate sports into amateur and professional categories is not worthwhile as many sports are a mixture of the two and the boundaries are constantly shifting. category:professional sports does not exist, and I am fairly sure that is because it was deleted some time back. Calsicol 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: not a useful classification. --Pak21 15:14, 9 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:Women's National Team
[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women's National Team to Category:Women's national sports teams
- Rename, for clarity and compliance with naming conventions. Calsicol 14:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename: I wondered what this one was about when I saw it. New name is much clearer. --Pak21 15:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. The US programs are not widely known by this name.--Mike Selinker 18:10, 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:Recreational sports
[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. David Kernow (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Recreational sports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete Every sport is recreational and one of the mere six here is an Olympic sport. Category:Sports is already sliced up in numerous ways and this one adds little but clutter. Calsicol 13:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Landolitan 20:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, POV. >Radiant< 09:26, 10 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.
Wildlife of
[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 all and merge Category:Wildlife of Europe to Category:Fauna of Europe. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Wildlife of Africa --> Category:Fauna of Africa
- Category:Wildlife of Antarctica --> Category:Fauna of Antarctica
- Category:Wildlife of Asia --> Category:Fauna of Asia
- Category:Wildlife of the Caribbean --> Category:Fauna of the Caribbean
- Category:Wildlife of Central America --> Category:Fauna of Central America
- Category:Wildlife of North America --> Category:Fauna of North America
- Category:Wildlife of Oceania --> Category:Fauna of Oceania
- Category:Wildlife of South America --> Category:Fauna of South America
- Category:Wildlife of the Middle East --> Category:Fauna of the Middle East
- Category:Wildlife of Southeast Asia --> Category:Fauna of Southeast Asia
- Category:Wildlife of the Indian Subcontinent --> Category:Fauna of the Indian Subcontinent
- Category:Wildlife of Scandinavia --> Category:Fauna of Scandinavia
As well as a merge for Category:Wildlife of Europe to Category:Fauna of Europe.
- Move It is the current standard to use "fauna", and is being used by most categories. For some reason, the higher ranked categories don't use Fauna. This is as many as I could find in a short amount of time, but if anyone finds another, please add it. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 11:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Does "wildlife" include plants? I've never been quite sure, but probably not. If that is right then the proposal makes sense. Landolitan 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, although to me it would make more sense to call them plants, animals, birds, or fish. ProveIt (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fauna includes all animals (fish and birds included), "flora" is plants. Wildlife is the same, but it doesn't sound like it suits, and some people can interpret it as flora/fauna, so it is a little ambiguous. Also flora and fauna denote a time and place, whereas animals does not. --liquidGhoul 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- rename or merge as per nom. Fauna is what it is! Hmains 03:28, 10 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.
Subcategories of Black people
[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 upmerge per vegaswikian --Kbdank71 14:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Black animators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Black British actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I closed the debate about the deletion of Black people, and found these subcategories. For consistency, should these be deleted also? RobertG ♬ talk 10:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think Black British is the only term used by them, although it looks like African British exists in some places. I think I'd keep that one, and things like Category:Black Canadians, with a later discussion on whether they should be renamed. I have no opinion on animators.--T. Anthony 12:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Category:Black animators. Black British is the standard term. Calsicol 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. Irrelevant intersections of race and occupation. Postdlf 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- UpMerge to Category:Animators and Category:British actors. The members of these categories are not listed in the parent. Deletion would lose relevant category information. Vegaswikian 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly reasonable. Postdlf 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per above discussion. Doczilla 07:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge per Vegaswikian. - jc37 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Black British actors (standard term), Delete Black animators (not standard). Crumbsucker 13:36, 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:Current speculated Presidential Runners for 2008
[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 (without listification per WP:NOT). David Kernow (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Current speculated Presidential Runners for 2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A category like this isn't quite encyclopedic. Not only is Wikipedia not a crystal ball, a category is not a useful way to list possible candidates for an election that's two years away, because it doesn't provide context. The article U.S. presidential election, 2008 more or less provides sources for such claims, and while not perfect, is much better at addressing this issue than a category. If kept, this cat needs a different title, perhaps Category:Possible candidates for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, speculation. Also, should be a list instead. >Radiant< 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Disagree with any proposed alternative name: isn't everyone in the US constitutionally a "possible candidate"? --RobertG ♬ talk 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who will be at least 35 years old by the time of the inauguration and who is a natural-born citizen. Postdlf 19:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Likely to get cluttered up with all-sorts of minor and improbable candidates. The front-runners for the major parties can be better identified and placed in context in an article. Calsicol 13:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and other comments. "Speculated" should be in our list of verboten category phrases, like "famous" and "left-handed." Postdlf 19:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And red-haired ProveIt (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Let's wait until we have some confirmed runners. Wilchett 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even then, candidate categories should be restricted to those actually nominated by their respective parties; the field is too wide with hopefuls of varying substance until then. Postdlf 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT. Doczilla 07:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, We don't do speculation ... or at least we shouldn't do it here. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - more easily maintainable as a list, plus it requires citations/references. - jc37 00:20, 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:Kuban
[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 --Kbdank71 14:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kuban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The same as for Category:History of Kuban below. Kuban is not an official subdivision of the Russian Federation. Ghirla -трёп- 09:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Ghirla -трёп- 09:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Kuban is Ukrainian cultural region in Russia. It was independent in 1918 and was declared union with Ukraine. Once again it was officially part of Ukraine. Stalin banned for Kuban Ukrainians to declare their nationality as Ukrainian and they were signed as Russians. KGB was holding strongly this region. And it is still continuing to be suppressed.--Vladyslav Savelo 05:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This, and the following nominations would appear to be part of a "slow" revert war over this category, involving User:Ghirlandajo, User:Irpen, and User:Vladyslav Savelo. (See Category:Kuban's page history, and User talk:Vladyslav Savelo#WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV to see what I mean.) - jc37 06:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - for now. I would like some references/citations verifying the factuality of the situation. - jc37 06:15, 17 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.
- I am going to translate article of Ukrainian wikipedia regarding Independent Kuban Democratic Republic of 1918. It will add a missing puzzle for whole picture.--Vladyslav Savelo 18:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Companies of Kuban
[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 --Kbdank71 14:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Companies of Kuban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The same as for Category:History of Kuban below. Kuban is not an official subdivision of the Russian Federation. Ghirla -трёп- 09:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Ghirla -трёп- 09:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - for now. I would like some references/citations verifying the factuality of the situation. (See my comment at Category:Kuban, above.) - jc37 06:15, 17 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:Archaeological sites in Kuban
[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 --Kbdank71 14:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Archaeological sites in Kuban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The same arguments as for Category:History of Kuban below. Ghirla -трёп- 09:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - for now. I would like some references/citations verifying the factuality of the situation. (See my comment at Category:Kuban, above.) - jc37 06:15, 17 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:History of Kuban
[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 --Kbdank71 14:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:History of Kuban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The category does not comply with the current categorization of Russia-related articles. Kuban is an ill-defined region, contermineous for all practical purposes with Krasnodar Krai. Either we rename it Category:History of Krasnodar Krai or delete it, because listing it as part of Category:History by country makes no sense. Kuban is not (and never has been) a separate country. I believe some sort of nationalism and/or separatism is at play here. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my nom. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 20:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: using term Kuban for a historical province is traditional, e.g. in Britannica 1911. Pavel Vozenilek 21:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you further explain? I've been going through the various Kuban articles and such, trying to figure this out. - jc37 11:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kuban is Ukrainian cultural region in Russia. It was independent in 1918 and was declared union with Ukraine. Once again it was officially part of Ukraine. Stalin banned for Kuban Ukrainians to declare their nationality as Ukrainian and they were signed as Russians. KGB was holding strongly this region. And it is still continuing to be suppressed.-- Vladyslav Savelo 05:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you further explain? I've been going through the various Kuban articles and such, trying to figure this out. - jc37 11:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - for now. I would like some references/citations verifying the factuality of the situation. (See my comment at Category:Kuban, above.) - jc37 06:15, 17 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:Tennessee Association of Christian Schools
[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. David Kernow (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tennessee Association of Christian Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Near empty category for non-article subject. Arbusto 06:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not cat-worthy. >Radiant< 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would vote to keep if this organization actually ran these schools but it doesn't do so. Wilchett 01:52, 10 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.
- 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/merge as nominated, consistency --Kbdank71 14:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ProveIt (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy Vegaswikian 06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Existing form is correct. Merchbow 17:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just trying to match the others in Category:Businesspeople by nationality. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and nominate other inconsistent entries: my (British) English dictionary has businessman and businesswoman as words so I think businesspeople is also correct. Tim! 07:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose "Business people" gets more google hits than "Businesspeople". Calsicol 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really care all that much, but it somewhat bothers me that they are inconsistant. See relevent discussions...
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_20#Non-standard_businesspeople_categories
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_7#Category:Puerto_Rican_industrialists_to_Category:Puerto_Rican_businesspeople
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_22#Category:Industrialists_of_Hawaii_to_Category:Businesspeople_of_Hawaii
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_28#Business_people_to_Businesspeople
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_11#Business_people ProveIt (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really care all that much, but it somewhat bothers me that they are inconsistant. See relevent discussions...
- Comment. What ever the result of this discussion. It should be considered the standard and allow for speedy renames of categories that do not comform to the consensus standard. Vegaswikian 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I don't see a great deal of difference between business people and businesspeople, and would support any nomination that makes them all the same. Just pick one, either one, and use it consistantly. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since it's obvious that the terms in question are controversial, perhaps we should call it something else extirely. Besides, "business" people could include just about everyone : ) - jc37 00:20, 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.
- 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 merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Texas musical groups, convention of Category:American musical groups by state. -- ProveIt (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Arbusto 06:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Olborne 21:32, 15 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.
- 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. David Kernow (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Republicans (United States). -- ProveIt (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and protect. We do not want to cat everybody by who they vote for, that's just trivia. If people are actually actively doing work for the party, that's different. >Radiant< 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Radiant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per Radiant. Any "categories by opinion" or "categories by position" are an incredibly poor idea. Category:Republicans (United States) and Category:US Republican Party politicians should probably be deleted as well, as being overbroad and useless ("wow, George W. Bush is a Republican! I wonder who else has been one!" yeah, right). These will each end up containing nearly half of all Americans and American politicians since the Civil War. Postdlf 20:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. People do change their voting preferences over time; this category (and the one below) would be unmanageable. --Charlene 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As a weak association. Wilchett 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete inadequately defined category. Doczilla 07:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hobby/interest/opinion categories are generally a bad idea. Merchbow 09:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unmanageable and difficult to verify. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see also: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_November_11#Category:Supporters_of_Plaid_Cymru for a series of similar categories relating to the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 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.
- 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. David Kernow (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Democrats (United States). -- ProveIt (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete. 4 names. Either they are Demcorats or not. Arbusto 06:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and protect. We do not want to cat everybody by who they vote for, that's just trivia. If people are actually actively doing work for the party, that's different. >Radiant< 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Radiant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per Radiant. Any "categories by opinion" or "categories by position" are an incredibly poor idea. Category:Democrats (United States) and Category:US Democratic Party politicians should probably be deleted as well, as being overbroad and useless ("wow, Ted Kennedy is a Democrat! I wonder who else has been one!" yeah, right). These will each end up containing nearly half of all Americans and American politicians since the 1820s. Postdlf 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As a weak association. Wilchett 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hobby/interest/opinion categories are generally a bad idea. Merchbow 09:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, do not merge. There's a difference, as noted above. - jc37 00:20, 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.
- 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. David Kernow (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't see this as a distinguishing characteristic. -- ProveIt (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It certainly isn't any more. Calsicol 13:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, trivia, and subjective at that (how much is necessary to count as "nude"?) Postdlf 20:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Postdlf. Danny Lilithborne 23:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ThuranX 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - performer by performance. - jc37 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm pretty sure this could apply to any actress, yet only three are listed? Psh, some category. eszetttalk 12:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This could apply to anyone. I think most people appear nude at some times (such as when they are in the shower). George J. Bendo 22:48, 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.
Category:Japanese language vocalists
[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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Japanese language vocalists to Category:Japanese language singers
- Rename, to tie in with other categories. Alternatively is there any point in having this? I guess that just about all Japanese singers sing in Japanese, but hardly anyone else does. Wilchett 03:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. I suggest that Category:Japanese singers should be a subcategory, leaving this category to hold articles about any non-Japanese singers that sing in Japanese. Landolitan 20:30, 9 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:Vocalists by language
[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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Vocalists by language to Category:Singers by language
- Rename, to tie in with the other categories for singers. Wilchett 03:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Calsicol 13:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - The degree (and related profession) is in "voice", not "song". - jc37 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. "Singer" is the primary everyday term, so it is no surprise it is predominant in Wikipedia. Olborne 21:32, 15 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.
- 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:British Basketball League players, to match British Basketball League. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Arbusto 06:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Merchbow 09:19, 10 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:Managers
[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, empty --Kbdank71 18:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Managers to Category:Music managers
- Rename, as it is hopelessly overbroad at the moment. But can my proposal be improved further? Piccadilly 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly use "managers" as supercat for various kinds of manager. >Radiant< 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly the status quo is incorrect. However, I'm not sure that Category:Music managers fits the bill either. In my opinion, "Music managers" is too broad a title (orchestral conductors, orchestral managers, film producers, musicians' agents, talent managers, and others, all "manage" music in one way or another). Are the people included in the categories all "music managers" (whatever that means - music manager redirects to talent manager). How about this proposal? : rename/merge both categories to Category:Music talent managers and/or Category:Musicians' agents as appropriate (create two new categories, and put people from the proposed categories into either or both), then delete Category:Managers and Category:Music managers. If Category:Managers became a supercat of all managers per Radiant! would it include sports team managers, CEOs and agents? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- rename to Category:Musicians' managers, which seems to be what is intended. "Music talent managers" would be more suitable for A&R executives, which is a different occupation. Calsicol 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Would withdrawing this nomination and having someone clean up the category be a better approach? This category includes talent management companies as well as individuals. I'll se if I can find better homes for some of the entries. If anything is left, that could influnce the action to take here. Vegaswikian 23:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have changed some categories and the ones that are not music related are left. I have also nominated Music Managers for renaming. Vegaswikian 03:17, 10 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.