Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 16

< July 15	July 17 >

July 16

Category:Museums in Georgia, United States to Category:Museums in Georgia (U.S. state)

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 14:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is in line with other Georgia (U.S. state) categories. Nathcer 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. Nathcer 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Twittenham 11:51, 17 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:Infrastructure of Poland

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 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only such national category, and it adds little. Delete Hawkestone 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category:Transport of Poland (or transportation) would be in line with other country subcats. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Category:Transport in Poland exists. Twittenham 11:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Landolitan 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:31, 23 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:Voivodships of Poland to Category:Voivodeships of Poland

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 (action has already taken by Elonka (talk • contribs)). --RobertG ♬ talk 12:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recent discussion/poll at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland concluded, and the consensus was that the correct spelling of this administrative unit should be Voivodeship not Voivodship [1]. This nomination is intended to cover all of the subcategories in this category as well. --Elonka 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- contrary to long established Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
1. The current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Follow local conventions states: "Generally, use the official English name for the place and its type."
2. The official spelling is "voivodship", published just this year at "Administrative Division of Poland 2006", an official document on a Polish government site. In English, the government site is referenced by everything from the Polish "Ministry of Transport and Construction", to "Addresses, phone numbers and WWW pages of Ministeries", to external non-Polish sites such as the "Ordnance Survey" (the national mapping agency of Great Britain), and "Intellectual Property Law".
3. Since there are official published English names, it doesn't matter whether that differs from past translation practice, or old English traditions (or Wikipedian Google searches for them).
4. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Include alternatives states: "When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliterations and English alphabet transliterations. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names are transliterations of the name 北京."
5. It is Original Research for Wikipedians to substitute their choices (votes) for the official translations of the Polish government. Wikipedia:No original research is policy.
6. Just as we've recently spent some time on Serbia and Montenegro, should the Polish government decide next week that it has something else, we'll rename to match. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating society.
--William Allen Simpson 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The issue was debated by those familiar with the subject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, and the various uses of the term were examined on websites and in outside works of reference. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the correct spelling is "Voivodeship". --Elonka 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as Elonka. This follows long discussion of the subject by many users closely familiar with it. William Allen Simpson's claim of an "official Polish government version" is without solid evidence. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, there indeed is a consensus at talk or relevant pages.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk} 14:15, 23 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:Residential architecture in London to Category:Housing in London

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 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present this category does not match category:Housing in the United Kingdom. Olborne 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as above. Olborne 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hawkestone 23:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Twittenham 11:52, 17 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.

Fauna by country

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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We now have "fauna of" categories for many,if not most countries, but there are still discrepancies left over from previous attempts at similar categorization, which now needs flattening into a "Animal type of country" format:

For these 4 oddballs, a choice needs to be made. At worst, a subcat can always be added specifically for introduced fauna.

And while at it, some other "fooian extinct animals":

Change all it's been bugging me for a while. Circeus 19:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom for consistency. --musicpvm 19:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it glad it's been sorted out. GrahamBould 19:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Casper Claiborne 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Forgive me if this has already been thoroughly hashed out before, but do we really want a "Fauna of" category for every country? Wouldn't that lead to Brown rat having hundreds of categories? Wouldn't a Fauna by Continent, be more sensible? --JeffW 08:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all except Category:New Zealand birds to Category:Birds of New Zealand (see Category:Birds by country) or rename all Birds of XX categories to Avifauna of (See Category:Avifauna of North America). Can we also rename Category:Animals by country to Category:Fauna by country? --Usgnus 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose this must have been debated before, but wouldn't "Animals of" be more normal english usage than "Fauna of"? --JeffW 05:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question, but right now, I'm inclined togo with the flow. I don't believe there's been any real debate. "Fauna" as the advantage of being unambiguous, and not allowing miscartegorization individual animals. "Animals of Russia" makes it tempting to sort Laika into it. Circeus 21:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Nathcer 21:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. are you stopping at Fauna? how about Category:New Zealand Music Festivals to Category:Music Festivals of New Zealand?? Category:New_Zealand_music_festivals there are only 10 articles currently in that cat. moza 21:42, 25 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:Identified Chemical Substances

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, empty --Kbdank71 14:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much too broad to be useful, and its presence in Template:ChemicalSources means it's the first category in almost every article about a chemical. —Keenan Pepper 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Until now there is no category covering only (pure, identified) chemical substances, all categories also contain pages that are not strictly chemicals, are mixtures, etc., which makes finding only chemical substances impossible. I concur that it is now the first category on every page, and that would need to be solved (can you hide a category?). I am willing to discuss other options. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Indentified chemical substances. --musicpvm 20:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Registered chemical compounds, Category:Patented chemical compunds...? David Kernow 03:02, 17 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:User ??-?

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 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A userbox that states "This box is kept empty for tax purposes" places this category on user pages. It should be deleted as it is very ambiguously titled. Also, joke userboxes should not have categories. --musicpvm 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Useless. - EurekaLott 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about at all.--Regeane Silverwolf 11:01, 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:Historic houses in North Carolina to Category:Houses in North Carolina

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

Merge. No other U.S. state has separate categories for houses and "historic houses" and it isn't a useful distinction. Only notable houses should have articles and any notable house that was built yesterday or earlier is "historic". Sumahoy 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nom. Sumahoy 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Recury 17:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Virginia got the same treatment a while back. - EurekaLott 23:38, 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:Women of Pakistan

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 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this category under the umbrella of "women by nationality." Before commenting here, please consult the DRV, which contains the arguments in favor of retention, as well as a history of this category's listings on CfDs. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain Xoloz 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's a more readable view of the DRV 192.101.136.110 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category would be useful to anyone researching the status of women in Pakistan. We do have precedent for categorizing women because of their notable circumstances: Category:Spouses_of_national_leaders, Category:Native_American_women, Category:Influential_pre-modern_women and Category:Women_of_the_Victorian_era. Hopefully we can avoid the slippery slope of Category:Women of Fooland... Dgies 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category has existed on Wikipedia for about two years and has survived previous CfD nominations. Also see Category talk:Women of Pakistan, where the discussion eventually favored keeping the category. Stanwatch 03:21, 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:Nigerian Yoruba Article

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 13:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category contains one article, which is also in Category:Yoruba mythology, which is a subcategory of Category:Yoruba, which is a subcatgory of Category:Ethnic groups in Nigeria.Honbicot 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Honbicot 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recury 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless and until there is a useful, verifiable distinction between Nigerian Yoruba and other Yoruba. --M @r ē ino 19:51, 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:Avifauna of Georgia to Category:Avifauna of Georgia (U.S. state)

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 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia is both a state and a country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:33, 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:Hood Films

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 13:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what they're going for here, but "hood film" is hardly an encyclopedic term. Should probably be renamed to Category:Urban crime films or something similar. --FuriousFreddy 16:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~If not "Urban crime films", then "Gangsta films" or "Urban gangsta films" or...?~~ If nothing else, rename to Category:Hood films. Regards, David Kernow 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC), updated 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it original research to invent new genres on our own? A film genre is more than just saying that some films have something in common, like they were all directed by Hitchcock, it makes a statement that the films are alike in some more complex, deeper way and that they make a group distinct from other genres. If this genre is attested to in movie criticism then I would expect the right name would be found in the same sources. --JeffW 05:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough; I forgot this category would be treated generically. Regards, David 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This name is slang, and I don't think it represents an established genre. Nathan Mercer 01:57, 23 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.

Wikipedians who like television by series

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 all as nominated except Category:Wikipedians interested in TV --Kbdank71 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a group of Wikipedian categories that have no rhyme or reason to their naming and so this is a step to get things consistent. The "fans" don't even know how they want their categories named, so those who just like a television show have been more consistent. Also, this will keep from having two separate categories, those who just like a show and those who are fans. The parent category is also up for renaming to be consistant with the children. At the end are two categories to be merged.
Lady Aleena talk/contribs 13:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in TV to Category:Wikipedians who like television by series

Category:Wikipedians who watch American Idol to Category:Wikipedians who like American Idol

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Aqua Teen Hunger Force to Category:Wikipedians who like Aqua Teen Hunger Force

Category:Fans of CSI to Category:Wikipedians who like CSI

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Carnivàle to Category:Wikipedians who like Carnivàle

Category:Cowboy Bebop Fans to Category:Wikipedians who like Cowboy Bebop

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of DTNG to Category:Wikipedians who like DTNG

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Drawn Together to Category:Wikipedians who like Drawn Together

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of ECW to Category:Wikipedians who like ECW

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Fairly OddParents to Category:Wikipedians who like The Fairly OddParents

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Family Guy to Category:Wikipedians who like Family Guy

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Firefly to Category:Wikipedians who like Firefly

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Friends to Category:Wikipedians who like Friends

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Futurama to Category:Wikipedians who like Futurama

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Green Wing to Category:Wikipedians who like Green Wing

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Jeopardy! to Category:Wikipedians who like Jeopardy!

Category:User LOST to Category:Wikipedians who like LOST

Category:M*A*S*H fans to Category:Wikipedians who like M*A*S*H

Category:Fans of the Mysterious Cities of Gold to Category:Wikipedians who like The Mysterious Cities of Gold

Category:Pokémon Fan Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Pokémon

Category:Wikipedian Seinfeld Fans to Category:Wikipedians who like Seinfeld

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Simpsons to Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Smallville to Category:Wikipedians who like Smallville

Category:Wikipedians Into The Sopranos to Category:Wikipedians who like The Sopranos

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of South Park to Category:Wikipedians who like South Park

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of SpongeBob SquarePants to Category:Wikipedians who like SpongeBob SquarePants

Category:Trekkie Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek

Category:Twin Peaks Fans to Category:Wikipedians who like Twin Peaks

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Wheel of Fortune to Category:Wikipedians who like Wheel of Fortune

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of X-Files to Category:Wikipedians who like The X-Files

Category:Wikipedians interested in Doctor Who merge into Category:Wikipedians who like Doctor Who

Category:User Monty Python and Category:Wikipedian Monty Python fans merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python

Category:User Veronica Mars merge into Category:Wikipedians who like Veronica Mars

Support all except the first one. This category contains a couple subcategories that are not by series. Also, there are significant numbers of categories that are "Wikipedians interested in..." so I'm not sure the change is obvious. You could even argue that comparing category:Wikipedians by musician, that the categories above should be under "Wikipedians by television series," and that should be under "Wikipedians interested in television." Regardless, everything else should change as nominated.--Mike Selinker 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sounds fair enough. -→Buchanan-Hermit ™/?! 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for consistency and rename the first one to Category:Wikipedians interested in television per Mike. --musicpvm 18:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A little bit of consistancy is not bad here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I'm with Mike on the first one, which is a little tricky and may encompass more than just fans of specific series. Otherwise a welcome idea, both in terms of preferable terminology and consistency. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:28, 23 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.

Mecca mosques and Medina mosques

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 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to rename:

All other sub-cats of Category:Mosques by city use the "in city" naming, such as Category:Mosques in Cairo, Category:Mosques in Islamabad, Category:Mosques in Istanbul, and Category:Mosques in Jerusalem. At the Category:Mosques by country level the naming convention is "in region" as well, such as Category:Mosques in Bahrain. Kurieeto 13:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both "X in Y" is the convention for buildings and structures. Chicheley 15:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom and above. David Kernow 03:04, 17 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:Histories of Polish cities to Category:Histories of cities in Poland

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 08:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:25, 23 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:Indoor soccer

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 cat redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is empty and the non U.S. centric category already exists at Category:Indoor football (soccer). Twittenham 11:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Twittenham 11:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect to Category:Indoor football (soccer) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ProveIt. Recury 17:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ProveIt. No harm in keeping this around to help gently educate Americans as to the British English naming convention.--M @r ē ino 19:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ProveIt. David Kernow 03:05, 17 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:English inside-forwards

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 15:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific for a separate category. Punkmorten 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overspecific and rather old-fashioned. There are too many categories on the average leading footballer's article already. Twittenham 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds painful. David Kernow 03:06, 17 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:Killer7 characters

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 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty category Melaen 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --musicpvm 18:32, 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.

Wikipedian supporters of Western Sahara

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 both as nominated --Kbdank71 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Supporters of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Supporters of Western Saharan independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename Category:Wikipedian supporters of Western Sahara -- mistaken mutual {{merge}} circa 2006-07-04 05:01:18 -- rename instead. --William Allen Simpson 06:59, 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:Sister cities to Category:Twin towns

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 both to Category:Sister cities and twin towns --Kbdank71 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge mistaken {{mergeto}} circa 2006-06-05 00:29:29. --William Allen Simpson 06:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This was also raised Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 4#Category: Sister cities, and the categories were kept separated. I suggest Category:Friendship towns, mentioned in the article Town twinning. --William Allen Simpson 06:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sister cities is the most common term, and until that changes, it should stay that.Merge as below.--Mike Selinker 09:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sister cities is not the common term in the UK. In fact I'm not sure that I've ever seen it before. Twittenham 11:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I've never heard of twin towns. And the article makes the case for friendship towns, partner towns, and lord knows what else. Well, I have no idea how to resolve this.--Mike Selinker 15:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Local government junket destinations"? Joking... sort of... David Kernow 01:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Sister cities and twin towns and keep both as redirects. Several of the articles use the compound term. Chicheley 15:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge. If you look at the contents, Category:Sister cities has the most entries and many of the entries in Category:Twin towns use 'sister cities' in their name. Leave a category redirect. Vegaswikian 17:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. One reason for preferential use of the term 'sister cities' on WP is that it minimizes confusion with twin cities (Category:Twin cities) which are something entirely different. —Blotwell 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chicheley. It's frustrating that both terms coexist, but until one clearly gains dominance over the other in common parlance, or a distinction emerges between the two terms, this seems the best way to balance them. --M @r ē ino 19:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Sister cities and twin towns per Chicheley. Sister cities must be the American term and American English does not have priority. The main articles is Town twinning. Olborne 21:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Sister cities and twin towns for the sake of good international relations, which is rather relevant in this context. Casper Claiborne 22:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Sister cities and twin towns. Note that the "List of" article uses "twin towns and sister cities", so either the category or the list should probably be the other way round... and usual preference is for cities over towns, so I'd suggest reversing the order on the list. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Sister cities and twin towns per above. David Kernow 01:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Sister cities and twin towns per above. Landolitan 19:50, 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:Singer-lyricists to Category:Singer-songwriters

and

Category:American singer-lyricists to Category:American singer-songwriters

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 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both terms mean the same thing. The singer-lyrcist categories were created much later and are much less populated. They should be merged into the singer-songwriter categories as that is the more common term. --musicpvm 06:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both per nom. Twittenham 11:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per nom. Hawkestone 23:22, 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:Sport WikiProjects to Category:WikiProject Sports

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 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a mistaken {{mergeto}} waiting since 2006-04-28 16:29:43 --William Allen Simpson 05:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. David Kernow 03:07, 17 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:People of African descent

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 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Category:African emigrants. Every human in the world is of African descent, and we do not categorize people by "descent". --William Allen Simpson 04:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the same thing as "emigrant" at all. An emigrant has to have lived in Africa personally. Twittenham 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost completely useless. Chicheley 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People of sub-Saharan African descent. Againt, it's obvious what the intention of the category is, and it seems a decent one, but it just needs renaming, not deletion.--FuriousFreddy 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per FuriousFreddy. The biological fact that the "out of Africa" theory of human evolution is almost certainly true is no reason to deny the sociological fact that people whose families left Africa in the last 500 years (the group that this cat covers) are often treated differently than people who left Africa 1 million years ago. --M @r ē ino 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What does this have to do with making an encyclopedia? Nothing in my view. Olborne 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a useless category when we already have e.g. Category:African Americans or Category:British Africans. What does "descent" mean anyway? Race is a social construct. As for "emigrants", we already have "People from ..." categories. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 99% of Wikipedia categories are social constructs! What is "Irish American" if not a social construct? What is "politician" if not a social construct? --M @r ē ino 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion. If ones subscribes to the Out of Africa theory, we all belong to this category, making it useless. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is perfectly fine as a top category for Category:African Americans, Category:People of South African descent, Category:Afro-Trinidadians, etc. Your argument that everyone is of African descent because of the "out of Africa" theory is a non sequitur as it means we should call everyone Africans. When you say someone is of "African descent" or of "african ancestry," no one will understand you to mean all people.--Ezeu 06:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Look at this list of similar categories. How can we NOT have it when we have all these others? (Does this mean that anything listed here should be cross-listed under its other nationality -- e.g. Category:Afro-Brazilians should also be listed under Category:People of Brazilian descent -- right? Bookgrrl 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur w/ William Allen Simpson. No doubt it would be the largest category in wikipedia. -- Szvest 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful as a top-level category. There is no need to add individual people to this category, but to the sub-categories. This category will not be large at all. --Ezeu 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Ezeu's argument and that it refers to the (modern) continent (ie. the countries that make up the continent which did not exist when 'out of Africa' happened) not any "race" and should include Arab, White or any kind of Africans as well Mayumashu 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently we do categorise people by descent,[2] and as Ezeu says, this is a perfectly decent top category for the existing sub-cats. Btw, what's with the "out of Africa" red herring: sure, humanity descended millenia ago from Africans, but does African American refer to all Americans? JackyR | Talk 10:32, 19 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:Roman Catholic Canadians to Category:Canadian Roman Catholics

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 14:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to match others in Category:Canadian Christians and Category:Canadian people by religion --William Allen Simpson 03:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Canadian Roman Catholics per nom. Twittenham 11:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Canadian Roman Catholics per nom. Cloachland 23:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom but comment there's a problem - Category:Roman Catholics by nationality all follow the reverse naming order Mayumashu 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since this is the only category that does not follow the form of all of the others. 19:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Category:Sea_and_river_deities_to_Category:Water_deities

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 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming Category:Sea and river deities to Category:Water deities (it could be Category:Aquatic deities, which is used in the Greek deities info-box -- see Harpina -- but IMHO more people are likely to think of "water" than "aquatic"). Doesn't seem appropriate to limit H₂O gods and goddesses to just seas and rivers. What about lakes, ponds, springs, streams, rain, etc? For example, Wuluwaid (rain god), Underwater panthers (which include lakes and streams), Oceanids (springs, clouds, rain), Jengu (which include streams and estuaries), Wentshukumishiteu (waterfalls as well as rivers]], Varuna (god of rain as well as of sea), and many more. I also notice that the Category:Sea and river deities page has a "see also Category:Rain deities, which doesn't exist, so this would solve that problem as well...)

Would also require renaming the subcats Category:Sea and river gods and Category:Sea and river goddesses. Bookgrrl 03:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, shouldn't be limited to seas and rivers. --musicpvm 04:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Twittenham 11:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Recury 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Should the subcats Category:Sea and river gods and Category:Sea and river goddesses be merged as well since the guideline is to not normally have male and female categories? --JeffW 09:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, although I prefer Category:Aquatic deities, since that would create the least redundancy with Category:Sky and weather deities. The deities who are associated with both rain and bodies of water can simply go into both categories. Category:Rain deities did exist, but it was merged into Category:Sky and weather deities; whoever deleted it didn't make sure that nothing linked there. The god/goddess subcategories are part of the hierarchies of Category:Gods and Category:Goddesses, and shouldn't be completely deleted without deleting the rest of the hierarchy. -Sean Curtin 05:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for Sean Curtin's proposal - I'm not convinced that the redundancy would be useful. TheGrappler 20:42, 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.

Streets and squares by city

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 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streets and squares are permanently located man-made entities. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Man-made objects, by country categories of such things are named "in country". I believe this should be applied to the following by city categories as well. There's no reason to change the naming convention in this case when going from countries to cities, as "in place" remains the most natural, precise, and appropriate wording choice possible. All other permanently located man-made entity by city categories have followed the "in country" wording of the by country model, including for example Category:Churches by city (Ex: Category:Churches in Toronto) and Category:Skyscrapers by city (Ex: Category:Skyscrapers in Phoenix). The following renamings are proposed:

--Kurieeto 02:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. --musicpvm 04:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Also, rename "Streets of" to "Streets and squares in" when the latter doesn't already exist. Circeus 04:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom - Erebus555 10:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Chicago happens to have squares, making Category:Streets and squares in Chicago, I don't know that all cities do, though. Also, very old category Category:Chicago area expressways should be renamed to Category:Expressways in Chicagoland or similar. —Rob (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. A similar argument can be made for the sub-categories of Category:Provincial highways in Canada. Also, Category:Toronto highways should become Category:Highways in Toronto. RayGates 15:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Seems reasonable to me. Jonathan Bowen 22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom.--DonBarton 08:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Here is another one: Category:Vancouver streets. And how about Category:Alberta roads, Category:Ontario roads, Category:Quebec roads and Category:Ottawa roads to "Roads in Foo". --Usgnus 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all and any similar not mentioned here, as above. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:30, 23 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:Romantic comedies and Category:Miracle operas and Category:Psychological dramas

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of clear out of superfluous opera cats. - Kleinzach 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as they're empty. --musicpvm 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera Fireplace 02:14, 19 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:LDS Wikipedians to Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians

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 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories. Merge. - EurekaLott 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --musicpvm 02:26, 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:God Wikipedians

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 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category populated by a deleted and protected userbox. Delete. - EurekaLott 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless. Punkmorten 11:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Chicheley 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can alert me to the existence of a serious (as in, non-joke) religion in which human beings refer to themselves as literal Gods. It is my understanding that The Nation of Gods and Earths does not use the term that way (they use it figuratively), but I might be wrong.--M @r ē ino 20:00, 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:User religion... to Category:Wikipedians interested in religions

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 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This cryptic category populated by a userbox duplicates a better-named category. - EurekaLott 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --musicpvm 03:23, 17 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:Children's opera

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, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category:Children's operas already exists. - Kleinzach 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since parallel category exists. Herostratus 02:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Opera and Category:Operas both exist and are not dupes, because the latter is restricted to articles about specific operas. —Blotwell 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is true because opera and operas have different functions. In this case both (children's) categories have identical ones. They both exist as sub-cats of 'operas by genre'. - Kleinzach 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blotwell's right, but there aren't enough articles about children's opera to warrant a category. In fact, other than the operas themselves, there are zero articles. Fireplace 02:19, 19 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:History of foreign relations of the United States to Category:History of the foreign relations of the United States

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 18:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing definite article. Related nomination here.
David Kernow 00:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC), updated 04:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. David Kernow 00:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that History of United States foreign relations would be best in my opinion, provided that is in line with the category naming rules (I know they're complicated, and I'm not up on them) and parallel with similar structures. But if not, then OK. Herostratus 02:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but forgot to mention above that "History of United States foreign relations" would conflict with its parent category's format, "Foreign relations of the United States" – so thanks for prompting me to include it. I'm also reminded of a related nomination from a few days back, which I've now mentioned above. Regards, David Kernow 04:09, 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:Folk opera

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 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Folk opera is something of a contradiction in terms. Folk music, folksong may be written by the folk, but folk opera is not! As a descriptive term folk opera may sometimes be apposite but as a categtory it is too vague to be useful, - Kleinzach 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. Herostratus 02:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera Fireplace 02:19, 19 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.