Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 16
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
May 16
[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 Keep. Vegaswikian 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for discussion (I don't have any good ideas). This category has more than just biographical articles in it ... it also has buildings that were built by the Astor family or funded by the Astor family. How shall we re-categorize this? --Cyde Weys 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see any problem with including non-biographical articles. Hawkestone 00:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you see how the name "Astor family" is confusing considering it includes a good number of articles about buildings? Buildings can't be members of a family. I was bringing this here for a suggested category rename, I just couldn't think of anything good. --Cyde Weys 17:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about adding a subcategory for the non-people articles. Perhaps Category:Places related to the Astor family? Category:Astor family-related places? That cat should probably have two parents(Category:Astor family + ?), but I can't find another suitable parent. SeventyThree(Talk) 20:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose any change per Hawkestone Choalbaton 08:19, 21 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow form for all other cats under Category:American musicians by state. Vegaswikian 23:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Carina22 09:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 20:35, 23 May 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.
- 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 per nom. Vegaswikian 21:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the category for individuals, but at present it is easily confused with Category:Military of New Zealand. Hawkestone 23:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename as nom. Hawkestone 23:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This has been through CfD before, the result was to rename to “New Zealand Military Personnel” However no one ever got around to it.
I favour the term New Zealand Military Personnel than people, this does not need to go through CfD again IMO Brian | (Talk) 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- New Zealand military personnel, not New Zealand Military Personal, surely? Grutness...wha? 00:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The parent category is Category:Military people by country and most of the other national categories are "military people". Hawkestone 00:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment was relating to the spelling and capitalisation of the proposal - it wasn't a vote. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Carina22 09:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:New Zealand military personnel per above, otherwise to Category:New Zealand military people per Bhoeble below. David Kernow 04:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC), amended 21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and how about Category:''X'' military people to Category:''X'' military personnel...? David Kernow 04:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nom. Please, please do not close this as a no consensus, when no one is supporting the current name. The standardisation issue can be dealt with another time. Bhoeble 20:35, 23 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename- Improper capitalization, pluralization, and Philippine should be Filipino, to match rest of subcats in Category:Television personalities. MakeRocketGoNow 23:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Carina22 09:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Calsicol 16:14, 17 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, Category:Bass guitarists is a sub-category of Category:Bassists. I believe it would be less confusing and prevent duplications if we merge these two categories. GentlemanGhost 23:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're planning to combine bass guitarists and double-bass players like that, you might as well throw in violinists, pianists and triangle players. Oppose. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Retain the clearer name and subcategorise as appropriate. Hawkestone 00:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Grutness and Hwakestone. gidonb 17:34, 21 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a category -- ProveIt (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Master Data Management contains the same text. Conscious 12:04, 17 May 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.
- 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 Moved to WP:SFD. Vegaswikian 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to WP:SFD. Conscious 18:58, 16 May 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.
- 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 Category redirect. Vegaswikian 21:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was #redirect-ed to Category:Newsweek Top 1200 Schools, duplicates it. Conscious 17:45, 16 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC) In fact, it's an article that duplicates Nuad Phaen Boran. Conscious 17:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, too narrow for a cat. --CTSWyneken 19:10, 22 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to: Category:Introductions. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Hawkestone 00:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Is empty anyway, after removing wrongly categorized articles. Loom91 07:34, 17 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More appropriately covered by 1966 FIFA World Cup (squads), where each player's squad number and other stats as at the start of the tournament are organised neatly. --Pkchan 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Pkchan 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the nom... SeventyThree(Talk) 20:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A category for every team at every major tournament... No. Delete. Conscious 18:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not any squad, it was a winning squad. This is the most famous team in the history of English sport by an enormous margin. However it might be more appropriate to create a template and add it to the articles. Hawkestone 23:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete better covered by a list, per Pkchan. Qwghlm 10:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I could see a use for Category:Players at the 1966 Football World Cup et al., but this is probably a bit too granular to be useful. — sjorford++ 19:02, 25 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category name should reflect its content. Conscious 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- The reliant wikiproject would be the RIGHT place to bring this up. Not here. ---J.S (t|c) 15:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I've left a note at the project. But the place to rename categories is here. Conscious 18:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename This was the name of the category in the early days of the project Mahogany
- Rename per nom. --InShaneee 00:00, 19 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Conscious 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 04:36, 18 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's neally the same, and at least the only article in this category is about a pharmacologist. Conscious 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge per nom. Maybe we'll find some non-phamracologists affiliated with the pharma industry, but until then we can survive without the category. Also, I misread that as afflicted the first time...go with the more obvious name. SeventyThree(Talk) 20:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Not all, and probably not most, people who will ultimately be listed in this category are pharmacologists. In fact, pharmacologists should be probably be a sub-category of this larger category, which can ultimately include all people employed currently or previously with companies in this industry. I would suggest that pharmacolgists probably comprise less than 10 percent of this vastly larger category. RXPhd 01:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Choalbaton 08:22, 21 May 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.
- 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 both. Vegaswikian 20:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make clearer that the category is classifying by war/revolution, rather than a catch-all for anyone associated with wars/revolutions; match the naming convention for similar categories (e.g. Category:Battles by war). Kirill Lokshin 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both per nom. Also, looking at Category:People associated with wars, there seem to be a few subcategories where trying to use a noun as an adjective has been stretched beyond breaking point; "War against the Peru-Bolivian Confederacy people", for example... David Kernow 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both per nom. UnDeadGoat 02:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both per nom. Choalbaton 08:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both but suggest that having separate "by revolution" and "by war" categories is not helpful. I would expect a "people by conflict" category to be divided up by period, not by type of conflict. Carcharoth 19:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would this be the right moment to point out Category:People associated with war - it does seem to be serving a different function, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Carcharoth 19:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a different function, in fact; it's meant to be a top-level category for various categories of people connected to wars or warfare, as well as a catch-all for people who aren't necessarily associated with any particular war. Kirill Lokshin 19:52, 23 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a category -- ProveIt (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, plus it looks like a commercial blurb. Her Pegship 18:16, 16 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Companies. David Kernow 04:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Category:Types of companies already covers some of what I would expect to find in Category:Company, but not everything. More general articles on topics concerning companies could be gathered in this category - eg. Company law. This use of singular and plural forms to distinguish between topical and instantial categories has been used before: compare Category:Opera and Category:Operas. Merging should never be automatic for singular-to-plural forms of category names - they can often perform usefully different functions. Carcharoth 20:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to my comment above, I looked through Category:Companies, and there are at least 8 "topical" articles mixed up with the "instantial" ones about specific companies: Corporation, Registered office, Company (law), Company seal, Corporate haven, Corporatization, Holding company, and Patent holding company. Some are already in Category:Business, which is already serving the function I had envisaged for Category:Company. In any case Category:Types of companies and Category:Types of corporations should be removed from Category:Companies and instead soft-linked from above the fold as a "see also" link. Carcharoth 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Useless duplicate. See Category:Business for wider topics. Bhoeble 20:31, 23 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 21:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To match other Category:Filipino people by occupation. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. MakeRocketGoNow 16:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:14, 22 May 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.
- 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 Deleted - Next time tag for speedy deletion with {{db-author}}. --Cyde Weys 17:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC) I created this category, in despite of the fact that one already existed. (A likewise one: Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians) Although the other one has also been proposed for deletion. I suggest this one may as well go, as only its template is using it (which should be deleted as well). --Svippong 13:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no purpose, and create is asking for deletion Fnarf999 14:52, 16 May 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.
- 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 per nom. Vegaswikian 21:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is for film directors, who are only one type of director among many. Hawkestone 11:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename as above. Hawkestone 11:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to Category:American film directors. Generally there is no meaningful intersection between hyphenated American cats and occupation cats by nationality. Members of this cat should be in Category:American film directors and Category:Jewish Americans. (As I suspect I am fighting a losing battle on this issue, failing merger, rename as per nom). Valiantis 13:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be right, but the system is well established so if this is merged it will only be recreated at some point, perhaps with the incorrect name once again. It seems a better idea to give it the correct name and then try to forget about it. Hawkestone 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Valiantis. Her Pegship 18:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 06:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Carina22 09:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Calsicol 16:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. While Valiantis has a point, the precedents are uniformly contrary to it and unless we have a major revisit to try to obtain consensus on removing the hyphenated American occupation categories across the board, we ought to make improvements where we can. Carlossuarez46 17:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Valantis. MakeRocketGoNow 19:43, 22 May 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.
- 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 per nom. Vegaswikian 21:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These two categories should certainly be merged. I propose to do it this way (see related nomination). Conscious 11:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Hawkestone 11:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. ProveIt (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to redirect. David Kernow 04:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC), amended 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. UnDeadGoat 02:08, 20 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty, blanked by creator. Conscious 11:13, 16 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty, blanked by creator. Conscious 10:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedy Delete if empty. Vegaswikian 21:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Empty now; blanked by creator on May 3 2006. ProveIt (talk) 21:27, 16 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Empty, redundant to Category:English Premiership top scorers. Conscious 10:33, 16 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Unused, blanked by creator. Conscious 10:27, 16 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category seems to bundle unrelated articles together. The "main article" for it is a disambiguation page. Conscious 10:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- delete - not even a criteria mentioned for why these items are in the cat. Dismas|(talk) 10:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The main article is a disambiguation page, which suggests that the category cannot acquire focus. Carina22 09:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. David Kernow 04:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just made some changes and then realised I should have waited until the debate was finished. Sorry about that. I'll give details here of what I've changed since the nomination, just so that people don't get too confused: I moved Reception theory and Reception history and Reader-response criticism out of this category and into more appropriate categories (Category:Literary theory for the first and third one, and Category:Theories of history and Category:Psychology for the middle one). I also added them to the reception disambiguation page, along with two other reception meanings I found (reception (astrology) and mutual reception). So that seems to tidy everything up except for air guitar. Haven't got a clue why that was put in this category. BTW, if I came across a category like this, would it be acceptable to clear it up and then nominate for deletion, or should the procedure be nominate and then clear up? Carcharoth 20:59, 23 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 21:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Empty, blanked by creator. Conscious 10:02, 16 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. Conscious 10:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 21:48, 16 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 21:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen an occupational category divided into current and former members of hte profession before and it certainly isn't a good idea. It creates needless complications and has no advantages. The outline of a person's career is given in the article, not the list of categories at the bottom. Merge Bhoeble 09:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- List of copywriters and List of former copywriters should also be merged, but the combined list can stay in two sections as the article can give context. Bhoeble 09:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Carina22 09:17, 17 May 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.
- 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. If some admirals have aricles, this cat can be created with the correct title and include subcats. Vegaswikian 21:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't capitalise second and subsequent words and "general officer" is normally shortened to "general", which is easier for most people to understand if anything. Piccadilly 05:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Carina22 09:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT IIRC, In Germany, an Admiral is a general officer 132.205.94.75 02:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename the SS didn't have admirals. Carlossuarez46 17:48, 22 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete. One school in the category, and it can go in Category:Elementary schools in Ottawa. Middle school = Elemtary school. Ardenn 05:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is only one school now. That's likely to grow. This is a standard category name for North American jurisdictions. See Category:Middle schools in Canada and Category:Middle schools in the United States. Also, this name works nicely with {{Schools in jurisdiction}} to give a standard means of navigation, throughout North America. We aught to have logical and consistant organization. Somebody would expect to find Greenbank Middle School in this category. --Rob 05:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What about an elementary or high school that has both? Where would that fit? Ardenn 05:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's no different than the many schools that teach every grade from K to 12, which we already have. An article goes in all relevant categories. Having two categories is not a problem. --Rob 05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC) See Queen Elizabeth Junior and Senior High School (Calgary) for example. No big deal. --Rob 05:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What about an elementary or high school that has both? Where would that fit? Ardenn 05:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Middle School == Junior High School == High School == Secondary School 132.205.94.75 02:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the district's middle schools start at grade 4. -- Usgnus 03:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for consistency, although I am mostly inclined against one item categories. gidonb 17:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It now has 3 articles, and will eventually have more than 15. The city (school district) has 12 public middle (what they call intermediate) schools(PDF), 3 Catholic middle schools[1] and at least one K-12 private school that has a designated "middle" program. -- Usgnus 03:22, 27 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant spam. I would speedy delete it if I could find a proper category for it, but I couldn't. Delete as soon as possible. --Nlu (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obvious spam. Vizjim 08:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, I removed the external links. --Rob 08:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Holy lord, delete. -- Kicking222 15:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. --Zoz (t) 18:15, 20 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any sort of hard criteria for inclusion. Most U.S. citizens are of multiple ethnic backgrounds so the inclusion criteria is so diluted as to become useless and non-noteworthy. Dismas|(talk) 00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. the words "ethnicity" and "race" tend to mean different things to many people Mayumashu 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. Though there's still no hard criteria. If the second race came into your bloodline 200 years ago, does that make you multiracial? Dismas|(talk) 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, flawed but somewhat useful. Lack of criteria has lead to some dubious inclusions that usually get fixed. Someone who has very distant "other" ancentry would/should be left out. The main problem with the list is who it excludes, like Latinos, who are mostly multiracial but Americans don't consider as such unless they have one non-Latino parent. Crumbsucker 06:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Most people on this earth are of multiple races. Go far back enough, and all of them are. The only way to sustain this categiry would be to set limits - "people with at least one grandparent of a different race to their other grandparents", something like that. This would simply be a form of racialism, and unacceptable in a respectable encyclopedia. The category reflects incorrect racialist thinking and the category should be deleted asap. Vizjim 08:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This serves no purpose. I can't see the utility of looking up who's multi-racial. It has no clear definition. Nobody is willing and/or able to ensure a category like this is used appropriately and consistantly. --Rob 08:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete And it would only get worse. Kill it now. Bhoeble 10:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No objective definition of multiracial. Valiantis 14:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment isn t it that if arguments being made here for deletion are valid, then the article Multiracial needs to go too? i ll put it up and see what folks over at article deletion have to say (see its voting here) Mayumashu 14:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, articles and categories are functionally different. There are many articles that would be inappropriate as categories or as part of a category title. Within an article on multiracialism, one can mention that the term is disputed, that different people understand it differently, and that some thinkers reject the idea of "race" as meaningful at all. A category makes a bald statement and cannot be finessed, qualified, or marked as debatable in this way. Valiantis 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Once upon a time it would have been important. Now? I sincerely hope not. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For all above reasons. Carina22 09:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 08:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although I agree with most of the reasons for deletion, as someone who disavows the whole concept of race, I did find this category useful in searching for actors of mixed african and euro-american ancestry as inspiration for a character in a book I'm writing Godheval 19:13, 22 May 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 20:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea category, contained only Malcom X's Eulogy, which I have removed from the category (and which will probably be deleted, as it's source material). Mangojuicetalk 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention it's misspelled. Malcom? Lol. Mangojuicetalk 04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; can't imagine why this was a category in the first place. ergot 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Hawkestone 00:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Palendrom 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Joe 04:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; spelling aside, it doesn't appear (able) to be a category. David Kernow 04:56, 18 May 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.