Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 17
| < October 16 | October 18 > |
|---|
October 17
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eight out of nine subcategories include the word "harbour". Not all harbours contain an operational port, and it is possible for a natural harbour to contain more than one port. There is little to be gained from trying to categorise separately, and little attempt is being made to do so. Rename Category:Ports and harbours. CalJW 23:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Move: Group them together as proposed. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 21:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The term "port" was probably used for the category originally because it is language-neutral. Although the renaming makes sense, you'll have the "US or International spelling" posse down on you before you can recategoris/ze all the articles in here! Grutness...wha? 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -This seems like a bad idea. MakeRocketGoNow 23:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In the vast majority of cases there will be nothing worth saying about the appearance except that it happened. A list would be better. CalJW 23:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What is this even supposed to cover? "This Is Your Life" was a well-known 50s-60s USA TV show; apparently this Cat refers to something different - British and recent - to judge by the one entry; but there is not even an article about it, and the descriptor line at the top of the category seems to assume there is only one "This Is Your Life" and everyone knows what it is. 12.73.195.117 00:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article states, the UK version ran from 1955 to 2003. It was one of the most famous programmes on British television. CalJW 01:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve: No need to list all flavors of biographies. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep Sounds interesting. Wallie 07:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 21:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, trivia. Radiant_>|< 23:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No content, and if there was, it would be better served by a list than a category. -Sean Curtin 03:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove abbreviation, switch to a more standard word order for a history category, and tie in with the lead article History of slavery in the United States. So rename category:History of slavery in the United States. CalJW 23:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 21:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A mixture of abbreviations and non-policy (though correct because the policy is techie-centric and wrong) capitalisation. Rename category:Foreign television channels broadcasting in the United Kingdom. CalJW 23:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These should be merged. 132.205.46.166 23:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as proposed. There has never been a UK aircraft carrier which wasn't operated by the Royal Navy. CalJW 23:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep (There has never been a UK aircraft carrier which wasn't operated by the Royal Navy.) Wrong. The Invincible was an Australian Carrier, for example. Wallie 07:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it belongs in the Australian category. CalJW 09:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Royal Navy 132.205.45.148 17:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (This vote relocated from a duplicate entry by The Tom 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Merge. No argument. siafu 21:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge.GraemeLeggett 20:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And there's more beng spawned eg Category: World War II aircraft carriers of the United Kingdom GraemeLeggett 20:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A straightforward abbreviation expansion. Rename category:Special protection areas in the United Kingdom. CalJW 23:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename. Not a speedy? siafu 21:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ramsar is not an abbreviation, so renaming this isn't going to add much clarity, but nonetheless let's rename it category:Ramsar sites in the United Kingdom. CalJW 23:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Speedy rename per #5. siafu 21:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everyone in the UK over the age of about 8 will instantly know what this is for, but probably hardly any foreigners will. Rename Category:Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reserves. CalJW 23:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve expand abbreviation. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 21:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A straightforward abbreviation expansion. Rename category:Nature reserves in the United Kingdom. CalJW 23:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Speedy rename per rule #5. siafu 22:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An abbreviation to expand and a word order to standardise. Rename Category:Public libraries in the United Kingdom. CalJW 23:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Speedy rename per rules #4 and #5. siafu 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This one needs to lose an abbreviation and some capitals and have its word order standardised. So let's rename it category:Colleges of higher education in the United Kingdom. CalJW 23:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Amdended to category:Higher education colleges in the United Kingdom. CalJW 13:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Speedy rename per rules #4 and #5. siafu 22:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to category:Higher education colleges in the United Kingdom for consistency with Category:Further education colleges in the United Kingdom and Category:Sixth Form Colleges in the United Kingdom. And it looks better, and more common (IME). --Vclaw 02:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have amended the proposed word order. This is another illustration of the inappropriateness of rules #4 and #5 CalJW 13:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no convention for motorways, but national road categories use the "in" form. Also the abbreviation should go. So let's rename this category:Motorways in the United Kingdom. CalJW 23:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Speedy rename per rules #4 and #5. siafu 00:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a simple abbreviation expansion. Rename category:Motorway service stations in the United Kingdom. CalJW 23:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Speedy rename per rule #5. siafu 00:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Abbreviated United States categories
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename all as nominated --Kbdank71 17:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some abbreviated United States categories which I don't think require any change in word order, and hope will not be controversial as I believe that the expanded versions will not clash with normal usage or sound awkward:
- Category:Politics of the U.S. by state
- Category:Universities and colleges in the U.S.
- Category:Law schools in the U.S.
- Category:State law in the U.S.
- Category:Landmarks of the U.S. by state
- Category:National Wildlife Refuges in the U.S.
- Category:Eras of U.S. history
- Category:Landmarks of the U.S. by state
- Category:Lists of U.S. state prisons
- Category:Awards and decorations of the U.S. military
- Category:Political advocacy groups in the U.S.
- Category:White supremacist groups in the U.S.
- Category:Neighborhoods of the U.S.
Rename all with "United States" in place of U.S. CalJW 22:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OPPOSE due to the massive redirect problems this could cause.Category:Awards and decorations of the U.S. military would require modifying over 200 articles to fit the new name. -Husnock 00:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No it wouldn't. All that sort of thing is dealt with automatically by a bot. CalJW 01:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename as per CalJW. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. No argument. siafu 00:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per CalJW. --W.marsh 15:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not want how-tos in Wikipedia, and a category for them is not appropriate. Note also that this category as it stands provides two entries about how-tos, which seems rather pointless. -- Egil 22:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Neutral because the category is being used as about how-tos. If it contained many how-to articles, I would be more concerned. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat to reflect the standard format for building categories and remove abbreviation. So rename Category:State government buildings in the United States CalJW 22:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 18:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent with nearly all the other ethnic groups by country categories. Rename category:Ethnic groups of the United States. CalJW 22:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename as per nom. - TexasAndroid 14:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 18:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 17:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A excellent example of a category where merely removing the abbreviation is not enough. Rename category:Diplomatic history of the United States. CalJW 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not purely a diplomatic category, though. Would category:Foreign relations history of the United States be too clunky? -The Tom 00:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe "diplomatic history" is the usual term and isn't restricted to the work of professional diplomats. CalJW 01:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename per The Tom; I agree that this is not just about diplomacy, and I can envision a seperate diplomatic history. siafu 18:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two separate changes. Remove abbreviation and restructure to a more standard format for history categories. So rename category:Religious history of the United States. CalJW 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 18:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: remove the abbreviation and put into a format which is more typical of categories on political matters and consistent with the parent category Category:Healthcare in the United States. So rename Category:Healthcare policy in the United States. CalJW 21:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename to
Category:Healthcare for the wealthyer, per nom. siafu 18:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ski resorts
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ski resorts are settlements rather than subdivisions, so I believe the "in" form is the appropriate option:
- category:American ski resorts --> category:Ski areas and resorts in the United States
- category:Austrian ski resorts --> category:Ski areas and resorts in Austria
- category:French ski resorts --> category:Ski areas and resorts in France
- category:Iranian ski resorts --> category:Ski areas and resorts in Iran
- category:New Zealand ski resorts --> category:Ski areas and resorts in New Zealand
- category:Swiss ski resorts --> category:Ski areas and resorts in Switzerland
Rename all CalJW 21:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Now amended to include "areas". CalJW 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all, but to Ski areas in Foo. Broader nomenclature (not all ski areas are true "resorts" and drawing the line of resorthood is dicey), and it matches the article List of ski areas. -The Tom 00:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't match the parent category category:Ski resorts and there are many articles about individual ski resorts. Resorts is certainly the commoner term in Europe. How about renaming them all "Ski areas and resorts" ?
- Bear in mind that to the holidaying Briton, "ski resorts" are the only real destination—nobody's booking their weeklong vacation to a village hill in some hole-in-the-wall corner of Carinthia with a ticket office, three chairlifts, and not much else. He's going to Chamonix. Fair enough. But in North America, and presumably in areas within driving distance of the Alps, day trips to small ski hills without "resort infrastructure" (ie hotels, apres-ski facilities, alternative activities) are still quite common. By way of analogy, I don't think we'd classify all "golf courses" as "golf resorts," or use the term "golf courses and resorts," even though the only sorts of golf courses that tend to merit lengthy trips are the bona fide resorts. "Ski resort" is a fuzzily-defined subset of "ski area" and so I think we should rename everything after the latter, including the parent. The industry in the English-speaking world uses "ski area" exclusively—check out these links from the United States, Western Canada, Pennsylvania, a Western US lobby group, Australia and Scotland. -The Tom 05:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You contradict yourself. As you say, British people usually say resort (and they do the vast majority of their skiiing at ski resorts in the Alps, not in a couple of places in Scotland with so little and unreliable snow that they have hardly been able to develop into resorts. CalJW 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear in mind that to the holidaying Briton, "ski resorts" are the only real destination—nobody's booking their weeklong vacation to a village hill in some hole-in-the-wall corner of Carinthia with a ticket office, three chairlifts, and not much else. He's going to Chamonix. Fair enough. But in North America, and presumably in areas within driving distance of the Alps, day trips to small ski hills without "resort infrastructure" (ie hotels, apres-ski facilities, alternative activities) are still quite common. By way of analogy, I don't think we'd classify all "golf courses" as "golf resorts," or use the term "golf courses and resorts," even though the only sorts of golf courses that tend to merit lengthy trips are the bona fide resorts. "Ski resort" is a fuzzily-defined subset of "ski area" and so I think we should rename everything after the latter, including the parent. The industry in the English-speaking world uses "ski area" exclusively—check out these links from the United States, Western Canada, Pennsylvania, a Western US lobby group, Australia and Scotland. -The Tom 05:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't match the parent category category:Ski resorts and there are many articles about individual ski resorts. Resorts is certainly the commoner term in Europe. How about renaming them all "Ski areas and resorts" ?
- Move "Ski areas and resorts" because there are a lot of interesting hills without resorts. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Move to Ski areas and resorts ; who cares if there's a resort, lets go sliding. ∴ here…♠ 06:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We want to be able to categorise everything relevant, and indeed everything that is currently in the categories. Many of the Alpine places are clearly towns and resorts. CalJW 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I use both. Ski areas and resorts is redundant, but not the end of the world. St._Moritz convinced me, a town page having nothing necessarily to do with the ski area. Whistler-Blackcomb has a ski page and a town page. Ok, long version for me too. ∴ here…♠ 10:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We want to be able to categorise everything relevant, and indeed everything that is currently in the categories. Many of the Alpine places are clearly towns and resorts. CalJW 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all to "areas and resorts", lest we leave out such articles as Arapahoe Basin. siafu 18:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all to "areas and resorts" Bhoeble 23:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove abbreviation and reformat to match the other categories in category:Education in the United States more closely. Also put education first, as that mostly comes earlier in a career, thought there is obviously some overlap. So rename Category:Military education and training in the United States. CalJW 21:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename -The Tom 00:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 19:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We should rename to avoid abbreviations where appropriate, and I don't think this one will be controversial. CalJW 20:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ren. th. Abbrev. -The Tom 00:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 19:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
National parks by establishment year
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete all --Kbdank71 17:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These categories were established in response to my nomination of Category:National parks by country a couple of days ago. The categories are actually be decade rather than by year, only three have been created, and only a handful of the hundreds of articles have been allocated. This is not very useful at all and I don't see it being taken up by other categorisers with much enthusiam. It would be much better to use lists, which could give specific years and other information such at the country in which each park is located, its size, and a weblink:
- Category:National parks by establishment year
- Category:National parks established in the 1860s
- Category:National parks established in the 1870s
- Category:National parks established in the 1880s
Delete all CalJW 21:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve about time they go away. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete All as per nom. - TexasAndroid 14:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid abbreviations. (And no this does not qualify for the lamentable new speedy rule 5, as it is not just an expansion.) CalJW 20:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think these are actually histories of the individual states, which is somewhat different than the proposed name. Perhaps Category:History by state of the United States? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles are, but many categories have now been created and I dare say there will be fifty in the long run. I have amended the proposal to your word order to reduce the risk of a "no consensus" outcome. CalJW 09:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two layers to this category, one above articles like History of Arizona and one above categories like Category:Arizona history. For the darn record, we didn't just name these things U.S. state to amuse ourselves. These complexities were what we were thinking of. Anyhoo, I think it should be Category:United States state history, Category:United States states histories, Category:Histories of the states of the United States or Category:Histories of the United States states
- The articles are, but many categories have now been created and I dare say there will be fifty in the long run. I have amended the proposal to your word order to reduce the risk of a "no consensus" outcome. CalJW 09:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 19:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thought it was a keep until I noticed that Allaire even redirects to Macromedia. If we can do without a page for Allaire, this cat can go as well. ∴ here…♠ 20:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 19:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling of this category clashed with the spelling of the main article title, Non-equilibrium thermodynamics. If I'd been smart and RTFM properly I'd just have listed it for renaming but as it was I created the new Category:Non-equilibrium thermodynamics and manually redirected everything (d'oh!). Anyway, I think there's no further use for this no-longer-in-use category. If I have done wrong, feel free to flame and otherwise abuse this over-enthusiastic newbie. :-P WebDrake 20:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve it's hard to find TFM and let's conclude the process. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Speedy, empty, redundant, delete requested by creator. siafu 19:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename all as per nomination --Kbdank71 17:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And also
- Category:Literature of Pakistan → Category:Pakistani literature
- Category:Literature of Singapore → Category:Singaporean literature
- Category:Literature of the United Kingdom → Category:British literature
Overwhelmingly nationality-based division rubric in this category (as it should be), the above are the only three exceptions to formatting rules, and the category name needs adjustment. -The Tom 19:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 03:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename - SimonP 16:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename; this is definitely a by nationality and not country discipline. siafu 19:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep category:literature by country, rename the others. — Instantnood 16:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: see also a previous nomination. — Instantnood 16:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The articles listed in the category are schools which have CCF organisations (rather than constituent parts of the CCF). Articles in the category "Combined Cadet Force" should be parts of the CCF, for example a theoretical "History of the CCF" article. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve: meaning of category is more apparent. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename I've been meaning to get round to this one, having noticed it some time ago. CalJW 20:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 19:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates the article Ecclesiastical government and is not needed. This was created to circumvent the article and push the DOM POV by a user who has been adding stuff to articles throughout Wikipedia. Davidpdx 16:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. BD2412 talk 16:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Deleteper nomination Davidpdx 04:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 16:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 19:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 20:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a request, if this is deleted, please protect it from being recreated again. Davidpdx 10:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates Category:Landscape architecture, which is the preferred term rather than the vague "landscaping". I already depopulated it before reading the instructions, sorry. Supergolden 15:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve: it is more specific and thanks for finding the cranny in which the instructions are. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete, though the disambiguation page indicates that Landscape gardening is referred to as landscaping, the actual population of the category seems to fit the new name. siafu 20:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Language policy of the European Union --Kbdank71 17:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The languages by country and languages by continent categories both use the "of" form. The main article is called Languages of the European Union. Rename category:Languages of the European Union CalJW 09:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Amended proposal Category:Language policy of the European Union. CalJW 22:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this category is not parallel to the other Languages of Fooland categories. This is not a collection of all languages spoken in the E.U., it's a category relating to language policy in the E.U. So "language" in the singular is correct, as is the preposition "of". --Angr/tTk tY mi 10:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Changed vote[reply]- You are saying it is wrong but it should not be changed. Please consider my amended proposal. CalJW 22:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Angr's clarification. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Please note that Angr is now supporting the amended proposal. CalJW 09:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Language policy in the European Union for clarity as noted above. -The Tom 19:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- That doesn't match what the category is said to be for either, as it includes language policies of the member states. Amended proposal: Category:Language policy of the European Union. CalJW 22:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Language policy of the European Union -The Tom 00:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Language policy of the European Union --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per amended proposal. siafu 20:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Language policy of the European Union certainly seems the best way to go. -Splashtalk 02:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another abbreviation to go in line with the convention. Rename category:Politics of the United States by state. CalJW 09:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, and note, could be speedied under new criteria #5, added after discussion on talk page as per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Category deletion policy. Hiding talk 09:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- When did that slip through? I disapprove of it and will not use it. It is very frustrating that if one concentrates on actually doing the donkey work, bad new policies are created on pages one doesn't have time to look at. There may well be some cases where it is better to use "U.S.". CalJW 09:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just now after discussion on thispages talk page. I also advertised the discussion on the village pump and in other places as per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Category deletion policy. And with all due respect, if there are cases where it is better to use U.S. this criterion will not prevent such a consensus from forming. Hiding talk 09:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- People might nod this through because it sounds like a nice idea without realising the complications. You must know that such changes have sometimes been controversial. What about the U.S. people categories? I will never agree to any of them being renamed "United States" as it moves us further away from the correct convention of "American people". I think it is inappropriate to attempt to reduce the opportunity for debate, and there is no need to have such a policy for a small number of categories for a couple of countries. Almost all of the UK categories have been renamed already. CalJW 09:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As you are aware, the consensus is forming around using American, which will remove your concern in that area. As to reducing any opportunity for debate, if something is renamed in error, it can be brought back and discussed here. No decision on wikipedia is ever ultimately final, as far as I understand. Hiding talk 10:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact the mistakes can be reversed (though perhaps at the cost of some stress) does not mean it is a good idea to increase the number which are made. CalJW 20:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As you are aware, the consensus is forming around using American, which will remove your concern in that area. As to reducing any opportunity for debate, if something is renamed in error, it can be brought back and discussed here. No decision on wikipedia is ever ultimately final, as far as I understand. Hiding talk 10:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- People might nod this through because it sounds like a nice idea without realising the complications. You must know that such changes have sometimes been controversial. What about the U.S. people categories? I will never agree to any of them being renamed "United States" as it moves us further away from the correct convention of "American people". I think it is inappropriate to attempt to reduce the opportunity for debate, and there is no need to have such a policy for a small number of categories for a couple of countries. Almost all of the UK categories have been renamed already. CalJW 09:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just now after discussion on thispages talk page. I also advertised the discussion on the village pump and in other places as per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Category deletion policy. And with all due respect, if there are cases where it is better to use U.S. this criterion will not prevent such a consensus from forming. Hiding talk 09:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- When did that slip through? I disapprove of it and will not use it. It is very frustrating that if one concentrates on actually doing the donkey work, bad new policies are created on pages one doesn't have time to look at. There may well be some cases where it is better to use "U.S.". CalJW 09:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve: Expand abbreviation. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Like the "History of" categories above, I think the proposed name does not clearly convey the intended meaning. As proposed, the category sounds like it is for categories about national politics rather than state (or state and national) politics. I suggest the new name be Category:Politics by state of the United States. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To match the other subcats of Category:Languages of Europe (Category:Language in the European Union is a special case and so can probably stay "in" rather than "of"). --Angr/tTk tY mi 08:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve for consistency. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 20:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into existing Category:Baseball managers and delete. NatusRoma 07:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible oppose. Managers and general managers are not the same. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How foolish of me! I guess I shouldn't nominate things for deletion this late. NatusRoma 07:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: keep separated what is different. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty; duplicates Category:Radiobiology. NatusRoma 07:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 20:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as mis-spelling. «»Who?¿?meta 23:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty cat, typo in title. Category:Wikipedia notability criteria exists. Irmgard 07:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, if possible. --Angr/tTk tY mi 08:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, I mispelled it per above (sorry, I'm new at this). --Interiot 13:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete typo. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Nonsense, more than Scotts wear skirts :) «»Who?¿?meta 23:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, not category. Irmgard 07:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, if possible. --Angr/tTk tY mi 08:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete typo. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Improper title. «»Who?¿?meta 23:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty cat. Category:Rivers in Lincolnshire is alive and kicking. Irmgard 07:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete CalJW 09:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (per #1). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete empty cat. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cat empty. Category:English writers, Category:Welsh writers, Category:Scottish writers, Category:Irish writers exist as subcats of Category:British writers, no in-between cat necessary Irmgard 07:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment category:Northern Ireland writers is one of the subcategories, not category:Irish writers. CalJW 09:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The four subcategories are grouped at the top of the main menu, and I should think almost everyone will spot them there before thinking to look for the nominated category. CalJW 09:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As CalJW above.--Mais oui! 21:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep British is a large category. Can mean empire, commonwealth, country grouping, etc. It should be split. Wallie 07:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Parentless and childless category. On Wikipedia, by convention, British applies to nationals of the United Kingdom; the Empire and Commonwealth (which should never now be called the British Commonwealth anyway) are not an issue in this. As Irmgard already pointed out there is already a category Category:British writers - this cat effectively duplicates that cat. Valiantis 12:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 20:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's capitalized wrong. But not only that, it's good disability etiquette to call people with disabilities by this phrase. Jacquelyn Marie 05:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve: meaning is better defined. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute madness. All templates used by the Computer and Video game WikiProject have recently been put into this category. This means, of course, that any pages that use any of these templates will start appearing in this category as soon as they are next edited. Given that there are about a dozen stub templates in here (many of which will almost certainly soon be taken to WP:SFD), this category will get very messy very quickly. Delete this - and do so very very quickly, before it does any damage! Grutness...wha? 05:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: All pages included here should use the <noinclude> tag. Whatever pages that use these templates are not included in the category. Look inside and see. Do you see any game articles? No, because all of them should be using the <noinclude> tag. Dread Lord CyberSkull ý 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. You're right - I'd assumed that the reason none of them were there was because none of them had been edited since the category was created. The category should still be deleted though - this sort of category doesn't belong in the main space since it is to do with the inner workings of a wikiproject. Grutness...wha? 11:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The category namespace is a single namespace with no "main" vs. other subspaces, but there is a Category:Wikipedia branch. IMO this category should simply be in Category:Wikipedia templates, not in Category:Computer and video games. Lacking actual namespace differentiation, we could perhaps distinguish "non-main namespace" categories with some sort of naming convention (like using a prefix character like ":" - or something that sorts after ASCII alphabetics like "!"). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. You're right - I'd assumed that the reason none of them were there was because none of them had been edited since the category was created. The category should still be deleted though - this sort of category doesn't belong in the main space since it is to do with the inner workings of a wikiproject. Grutness...wha? 11:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Nominator apparently misunderstood usage. Category's Talk page should have ==Usage== instructions as is being done on Templates. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete, categorizing templates like this does not in any way make them clearer or easier to use. Instead, make list pages such as Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This needs to have a different parent cat, but this is a useful tool for keeping track of WP:CVG's various templates. Since the cat link on those templates is noinclude'd out, it's not a problem. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One article included, and that article needs to be reduced and merged as it is. --FuriousFreddy 03:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve: give it a one-article tour to a deserted island. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Approve deletion per nom. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 20:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Little lost cat, covered by Category:Canton seats in Pichincha. MeltBanana 01:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Approve: sit down firmly on it. (SEWilco 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 20:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.