Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 12 July 14 >

July 13

[edit]

Category:Polish resistance to Category:Polish resistance during World War II

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the very same reason Polish resistance is a disambig.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bronxites to Category:People from the Bronx

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

The result of the debate was Renaming in progress, please have patience --William Allen Simpson 04:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating discussion since CFD was never finished. Also doing it since I agree with the nom, though I think it should be "People from the Bronx, New York". --Dismas|(talk) 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Andrew Jackson

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

The result of the debate was keep, category no longer underpopulated. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This eponymous category only has one article in it after half a year. Not needed. Help control the overpopulation of eponymous categories! --Samuel Wantman 20:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fictional characters by hair color

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. - EurekaLott 03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Category:Fictional characters by hair color[reply]

Category:Fictional brunettes
Category:Fictional blondes
Category:Fictional redheads

A set of categories that appear to be recreations of ones previously deleted in May. Previous discussions can be found here and here. Those discussions were unanimously in favour of deletion and I can't see how the situation has changed in the last 2 months. Road Wizard 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Residence halls to Category:University and college dormitories

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Halls of residence article was merged into Dormitory, there's no reason to maintain separate categories. - EurekaLott 19:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cities and towns in Italy

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 20:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow up to the recent merging of the separate national cities and towns categories into Category:Cities and towns in Italy as there is only one term for them in Italy. There has been considerable discussion on the talk page and this version seems to be the most popular. I will leave those with a more detailed interest in Italy to decide what to do at an even more local level, but merging the cities and towns categories at the first division subnational entity level will make it much easier for non-Italian, ie most readers, to find the articles about well known towns and cities.

  • Merge/rename all as nom. The 20th region, Sicily, already follows the proposed form. Honbicot 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (or at least Hold on). There is currently a discussion about how to re-name the above categories at Category_talk:Cities and towns in Italy, but consensus has not yet been reached, since there is disagreement about whether the name should be "Cities and towns", "Municipalities", or "Comunes". I recommend giving the discussion at least a few more days to progress, though this umbrella nomination might be useful to at least affirm "whichever title consensus approves, can proceed with category renaming." --Elonka 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has made progress there, but it is time it moved here, where people more familiar with category issues can participate. You seem to imply that this page should be presented with a fait accompli, which in turn implies that you think that interest groups "own" the categories for their subject area of interest. That is no more the case than it is the case that contributors own articles. Honbicot 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! That's a lot of assumptions about what I mean.  :) No, what I mean is that it's a complicated issue, that's taking up a lot of space at Category_talk:Cities and towns in Italy, as different hierarchies are being proposed, and I think it would be major clutter to try and discuss everything here, instead of there. I do agree that it's worthwhile to get as many different viewpoints into the discussion as possible, to help build consensus. I just don't think it's appropriate to propose a firm "this is how it should be done" yet, since discussion is still on-going. As for my own participation, I see myself as a neutral editor who volunteered to help out with CfD, specifically untangling a situation at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 9#Category:Cities and towns in Italy. While working on that merge, I discovered other complicating factors involved with implementing those changes, which I brought up on various talk pages, and then I set up the central discussion location at Category_talk:Cities and towns in Italy to help move the discussion along. I personally have no strong preference how it's done, as long as there's consensus on it. --Elonka 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I have no strong preference either way, but I just want to make sure it's clear. If this proposal succeeds, does that mean that the articles in, say, Category:Towns in Tuscany should be recategorized to Category:Cities and towns in Tuscany, as this proposal suggests, or to Category:Municipalities in Tuscany (as this proposal also suggests, since it recommends the method currently being used in Category:Sicily)? --Elonka 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new category would be "Cities and towns in Tuscany." Tuscany is a region of Italy, as are Sicily, Sardinia, Lombardy, Umbria, etc. Categories beginning with "Municipalities" will be used for province categories - which are subdivisions of regions. For all regions but Sicily, province categories have not even been created ( so we don't need to worry about them here). The region of Tuscany, for example, has 10 provinces within it. The categories up for renaming now are all regions, and would all be correctly renamed to "Cities and towns in *Region*".
The general scheme is visable at Category_talk:Cities_and_towns_in_Italy#Another_Scheme_Option. Sicily, Tuscany, Campania, and all of the other regions should probably follow the Sicilian scheme. On the linked page, there is also an example scheme for Lombardy. I think there has been some confusion because Sicily sometimes seems to be autonomous in relation to Italy, but geographically, it is just another region like Tuscany or Abruzzo, and these regions can follow Sicily's categoriztion scheme easily. - AKeen 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Major League Baseball regular seasons

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material in articles precisely duplicated sections from articles for Years in baseball. Articles revised to redirects. MisfitToys 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Neighbourhoods of England to Category:Neighbourhoods in England

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 29 renamed Neighbourhoods of the United Kingdom to Category:Neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom; this subcategory should be renamed for consistency. Tim! 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Neighbourhoods of Scotland to Category:Neighbourhoods in Scotland

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 29 renamed Neighbourhoods of the United Kingdom to Neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom; this subcategory should be renamed for consistency. Tim! 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Philippine Muslim Affairs to Category:Islam in the Philippines

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to standard form. Note to User:Jondel: There is no reason why it can't cover all you want under the standard name. All the items should be in the usual subcategories of history, politics etc in any case, not isolated here. Inconsistent naming is not good. Chicheley 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jewish holy days to Category:Jewish holidays

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to normalize spelling. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Mareino and Daniel575. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the present name is very accurate. I was very careful when I created this parent category in 2004 [1] the word "holiday" was not used as that would by definition then limit it to Jewish holidays only, whereas the words "holy days" can have all of its sub-categries that includes the Category:Shabbat which is not a "Jewish holiday" and the various Jewish sad fast days which are not "holidays" (and it's no use citing "metaphysical explanations" how on some super-natural level, days that commemorate the destruction of the Jewish temples and the deaths of millions is a "holiday"). IZAK 06:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nom's suggestion is valid. New holiday cat should be opened and be subcat of holy day. --Shuki 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Controversial road traffic legislation

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea in theory, but I can't offhand think of any road traffic legislation which isn't controversial. Even drink-drive laws, which are pretty much universally accepted as a good idea, were controversial when introduced and are still opposed by some of the libertarian motorists. Much of the controversy is, in any case, not actually with the legislation itself, but with details of its application. Are parking restrictions controversial? Not if you live ina town and want to be able to move at peak times they aren't, but if it's your car that's clamped while you buy your newspaper then it sure as hell is. So, it's an arbitrary and not very meaningful classification. Just zis Guy you know? 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Controversial in this instance means that although the legislation was (or maybe was not) introduced on the back of supporting research, that there is compelling, or often more compelling, research which could be used to oppose the basis upon which the legislation was justified. There will also be advocacy groups which campaign specifically against the particular legislation. A rename to something more specific or more concise to cover the above would be acceptable. Legislation which, for example, requires traffic to stop at a stop sign is not controversial is this sense. -De Facto 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't know of any road legislation that does not fall under this umbrella. Perhaps you could list some legislation which isn't controversial? The stop sign legislation most certainly is controversial, since many poeple caught runing stop signs plead that there was no danger posed, in that there was no traffic at that time of day; its application to two-wheeled vehicles is also controversial in that it is easier to miantain control while rolling through than it is to come to a complete stop, a problem which does not apply to four wheel vehicles. The inclusion of decriminalised parking restrictions is another case in point: there is nothing controversial whatsoever about the idea that parking in some places represents an insupportable obstruction to traffic, or that it is not really appropriate to criminalise this behaviour; the "controversy" is about details of enforcement, not the legislation. Ditto speed limits: many of the groups who oppose enforcement of limits go out of their way to state that they are not aganst limits per se, only their application to my driving, as it were. All road legislation is controversial - that is the point. The category is functionally inseperable from the generic road traffic legislation. Just zis Guy you know? 09:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whether something is controversial, or not, is a matter of fact, and is valid to note in Wikipedia. The reasons it is controversial may be based on opinions which should be described and attributed in the article itself. -De Facto 08:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chincheley sums it up well. Softgrow 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the articles in the cat (apart from Speed limit) do contain sections of text which deal with a controversial aspect of the legislation in question. On the other hand, there do not appear to be any other significant traffic legislation articles by which to compare. I can see why someone might be interested in the controversial aspects of road legislation - but is a category the best way of dealing with that? If the topic is significant and of interest, the better approach might be to write an article. We do perhaps have a tendency to have a lot of categories because of the flexible nature of this electronic encyclopedia, yet the more categories we have the less useful the category system becomes because categorisation becomes confusing. Hmmmm. Delete. SilkTork 13:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. Golfcam 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Honbicot above. Appears not NPOV to contain "Controversial" -- MrDolomite | Talk 00:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV. All the other controversy categories should be deleted for the same reason. Choalbaton 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Honbicot's commenys --ReddyRose 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:New Right (United States) to Category:New Christian Right

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specificity. Intangible 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just another aspect of Intangible's relentless campaign to assert an idiosyncratic taxonomy into Wikiepdia. Intangible just failed in an atempt to delete this category. The New Christian Right is just a portion of the New Right in the United States. The New Right in the U.S. is a coalition of subsectors that include the Christian Right, Business Internationalists, Business Nationalists, Neoconservatives, Libertarians, and Paleoconservatives, among others.
See:
  • Himmelstein, Jerome L. 1990. To The Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Hardisty, Jean V. 1999. Mobilizing Resentment: Conservative Resurgence from the John Birch Society to the Promise Keepers. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Judis, John B. 2000, The Paradox of American Democracy: Elites, Special Interests, and the Betrayal of the Public Trust. New York: Pantheon Books.
This is basic stuff.--Cberlet 15:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "The New Right in the U.S. is a coalition of subsectors that include the Christian Right, Business Internationalists, Business Nationalists, Neoconservatives, Libertarians, and Paleoconservatives, among others." If the Category:New Right (United States) can include neoconservatives, libertarians and others, it should be deleted; make a New Right (United States) article instead. Intangible 15:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, Intangible, there is already a disambiguation page on the New Right that states the following:
  • In the United States, the New Right refers to a conservative political movement that coalesced through grassroots organizing in the years preceding the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater. The Goldwater campaign, though failing to unseat incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson, galvanized the formation of a new political movement. In elite think-tanks and local community organizations alike, new policies, marketing strategies, and electoral strategies were crafted over the succeeding decades. The New Right succeeded in building a policy approach and electoral apparatus that propelled Ronald Reagan into the White House in the 1980 presidential election. The American New Right is distinct from and opposed to the more moderate tradition of the so-called Rockefeller Republicans. Though mostly ignored by scholars until the late 1980s, the formation of the New Right is now one of the fastest-growing areas of historical research. New Right activists denounced abortion, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, and especially affirmative action.
The solution is to link this text to the category, which will list the major groups and individuals identified by scholars as being part of the New Right in the United States.
Please stop attempting to turn our ongoing editing disagreements into a full-scale edit war.--Cberlet 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the solution. Categories should be homogeneous, not heterogeneous. Intangible 21:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be obscure, there are scores of books that list the New Right in the United States as a category with subsectors. Scholars use the category all the time. There is no office with a door labelled "New Right" in the United States. It is a term used to describe a collection of groups, institutions, and individuals.--Cberlet 22:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, there isn't a "New Christian Right" office either, but this naming does allow the category to be specific and homogeneous. Instead you are make ad hoc arguments that do no concern the argument I am making here. Intangible 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that according to Cberlet's definition, the "New Right" includes even the Old Right. That makes it pretty much useless, if not total nonsense. Mirror Vax 02:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Libertarian leftist Roderick Long would also likely be dismayed with being lumped in with Neoconservatives. I agree with Intangible that the New Right article needs to be expanded to properly document such a broad categorization. Let's see what can be done with the article before making it appear as though this definition is non-controversial or oft-used. Dick Clark 05:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

All subcategories of Category:AWACS aircraft

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only like ten different AWACS aircraft in the world, any category below this one has one or two articles in it. - Dammit 13:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Heretic-HeXen

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

The result of the debate was found deleted --Kbdank71 18:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have manually renamed this to Category:Heretic-Hexen. This is now empty and redundant and can be removed. Fragglet 11:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beaches

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

The result of the debate was relist here, none of the cats were tagged --Kbdank71 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 7 categories listed below do not follow the same form as the other 27 national categories:

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

Category:Macau attractions to Category:Visitor attractions in Macau

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the many similar categories for other places. Chicheley 10:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Monopoly to Category:Monopoly (game)

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Monopoly (economics) to Category:Monopoly

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

The result of the debate was no change. I will take advice on what best to do about the idea of "locking" the ambiguous category. I may be able to devise something, an {{ambiguous category}} template, perhaps? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to create a category "Monopoly" in economics, but it turns out that Category:Monopoly is devoted to the board game. I created Category:Monopoly (economics) but this seems silly to me. The board game category should be renamed to Category:Monopoly (game), so Category:Monopoly can be used for the economic concept. JQ 09:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Category:Market failure and Category:Anti-competitive behaviour are sufficiently specific. Pending further discussion, I support leaving the game's category un-disambiguated and deleting other. ×Meegs 11:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a brief exchange on JQ's talk page, I no longer advocate the economic cat's deletion. Instead, I support both of his rename proposals. ×Meegs 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Vehicles with front bench seating

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit much to classify based on the type of seats or interior features. Vegaswikian 06:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Comedy recordings to Category:Comedy albums

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both cats are for comedy albums. Category:Comedy recordings should be merged and deleted as it's name is ambiguous and not consistent with other album categories. --musicpvm 05:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Salad Fingers

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for some flash animations. Small and without any potential for growth. Delete - Motor (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mayors by sub-national categories

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The naming convention for mayors by region/place categories as per a CFD discussion on June 24 is to use "Mayors of x" for cities, and "Mayors of places in x" for countries. This proposal is to apply the "Mayors of x" to mayors by city categories that currently do not follow the convention, and is also to apply the "Mayors of places in x" naming convention to mayors by sub-national entity categories like provinces of Canada and states of the USA. The "of places in" phrase avoids any potential conflict of instead using the words "cities", "cities and towns", or something else entirely. I feel these proposed new titles are the most natural and precise wordings possible.

(groupings added by Docu)

--Kurieeto 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_13&oldid=1136104654"