Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 17

< September 16	September 18 >

September 17

Abbreviated DRC categories

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. ∞Who ?¿? 04:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Democratic Republic of the Congo categories are already in the full form. I would like to see the exceptions renamed for the sake of consistency:

CalJW 23:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. TexasAndroid 13:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 23:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nom. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 16:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but for the sake of consistency, category:Musical groups of DR Congo is better than category:DR Congolese musical groups. --Ezeu 18:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. - Darwinek 10:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Low and mid rise commercial buildings in London

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who ?¿? 23:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Low- and mid-rise commercial buildings in London. Neutrality^talk 23:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not clear what goes in here. Perhaps would be better as a list like List of buildings in London by height or somesuch. siafu 23:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per siafu, unless there is an official definition of low- and mid-rise (which there might be; planning permission might hinge on such). Weakly listify. -Splash^talk 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear enough. A list would be worse than pointless: it would probably be neglected, but if anyone took to it with enthusiasm that would be a waste of effort better spent elsewhere. This category reduces the amount of uncategorised buildings in category:London architecture. CalJW 16:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, it needs to be made clear just what is meant by the rather relative terms "low-rise" and "mid-rise", otherwise the category is not meaningful. siafu 17:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's just as meaningful as the tall buildings categories. Trying to fix a limit will just create a row as I know from other sites that no agreement on what constitutes a skyscraper is possible. People from countries with very tall ones try to insist on a really high limit to maximise their sense of superiority CalJW 00:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tall buildings are notable for being tall. Low and mid-rise buildings are presumably notable for some other, more pertinent reason. Besides, if we have two categories for buildings by height, then we need to define them much more strictly than we do if there is only one. siafu 06:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we are unwilling or unable to make a distinction as to what the differences between, low-rise, mid-rise, tall, etc, then any editor can put any building article into this with the reasoning that "I think building x is low-rise (mid, tall)." As such, it's useless. --Kbdank71 14:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion voters haven't offered any better ideas. Osomec 16:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I nearly suggested "office buildings" but that overlaps imperfectly with too many other categories. Bhoeble 17:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other d reasons above. This is a non-notable category, only contains 9 articles, most of which already belong, or can be added to an appropriate category. ∞Who ?¿? 18:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 out of 9 belong to another buildings category, which does not meet my definition of "most". CalJW 04:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I said that can be put in other cats, and I count 6 that have other categories other than this one. The main idea is that it does not need to be cat'd as a structure unless it is notable for being a certain type of structure. One or two of them are musuems/art galleries, its not important that its a short or mid height one. ∞Who ?¿? 05:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Culture Bound Syndromes

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. ∞Who ?¿? 04:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Culture-specific syndromes. Neutrality^talk 21:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per article title, Culture-specific syndrome. siafu 23:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (to clarify, I think siafu does want the plural, since cats usually are). -Splash^talk 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. I meant the plural. siafu 03:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Culture of the two Congos

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/Rename per nomination. ∞Who ?¿? 04:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate countries called Congo: Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of Congo. We need Category:Congo for disambiguation, but I don't think we need any merged categories at the next tier. It seems that the only area where we have them is culture, and I think that is probably by accident rather than design. I have moved the subcategories into either category:Congolese culture (Brazzaville) which already existed, or category:Culture of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which I created myself. There was one article which belonged in both, but the answer is to put it in both, just as we might put an article in both the French and Belgian categories for example. The following changes will tidy up this area:

Delete category:Congolese culture
Rename category:Congolese sport as category:Sport in the Republic of the Congo (Category:Congo DR sport already exists)
Rename category:Congolese football as category:Football in the Republic of the Congo (Category:Congo DR football already exists)
Rename category:Congo at the Olympics as Category:Republic of the Congo at the Olympics (again the other one already exists)
Rename category:Congolese writers as category:Writers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo as the only article in it is about a writer from that country.
Delete category:Congolese footballers as it is empty and there should be two separate categories as and when required.

CalJW 23:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of category:Congolese culture, I would vote Keep, since many aspects of the two counties cultures are closely linked (especially in terms of music). Deleting this category would make as much sense as deleting category:Chinese culture. The other renamings are fine. - Xed 23:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- German and Austrian, Canadian and American, Australian and New Zealand culture etc are closely linked, but we do categories by country. The two Congo's already have separate main music articles. There are no articles in category:Congolese culture - and that isn't because I copied some into both national categories. [User:CalJW|CalJW]] 04:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  - In the same way that "Chinese culture" can refer to both the culture of people from Singapore and Hong Kong, Congolese culture can refer to both Congos - Xed 16:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Rename all as per nom - TexasAndroid 13:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Rename all as proposed. Osomec 18:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Rename all per nom. siafu 23:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/rename per nominator. -Splash^talk 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Political divisions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

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. ∞Who ?¿? 04:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the standard form: category:Subdivisions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. CalJW 21:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per consistency. -Splash^talk 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 12:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roman officeholders

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. ∞Who ?¿? 04:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an umbrella rename proposal regarding Category:Republican consuls and Category:Republican praetors.

Rename: "Republican consuls" or "Republican praetors" is fairly clear, but "Roman Republican consuls" or "Roman Republican praetors" is more clear, I think. I'd also be OK with "Consuls of the Republic of Rome" or "Consuls of the Roman Republic", but then we'd need to revisit all of the other categories in this area as well. On a final note, I need to look carefully to see if any imperial-era praetors are on the praetor list; if so, it might make more sense to rename these "Roman consuls" and "Roman praetors". What do others think? Nandesuka 20:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made the section heading a link, but there is no such category. Have you marked any categories with cfd notices? This is a specialist area and there won't be many well-informed comments here if you don't bring this discussion to the attention of Roman history enthusiasts. I would have thought that there should be an overall category with a variety of subcategories. For modern countries that overall category would be politicians, but that may not be appropriate for Ancient Romans - though I have no opinion on the matter myself. CalJW 21:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section heading, but added the categories I am talking about in the main text; both categories have been marked with cfru notices pointing to "Roman officeholders" on this page. Nandesuka 22:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. ∞Who ?¿? 18:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:Chinese Filipino

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. ∞Who ?¿? 04:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to iron out the muddle in the Philippines/ethnicity categories and adding blurbs in the hope of preventing future confusion about the various terms. This one should be renamed category:Chinese-Filipinos which is more standard. CalJW 19:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename standardize. ∞Who ?¿? 18:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Filipino Poles

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. ∞Who ?¿? 04:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was one article in this category, but he was a Polish-Filipino, not a Filipino Pole, so I have moved him to category:Polish-Filipinos. I doubt that this category will acquire any articles in the near future. Delete. CalJW 18:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom --Aranda56 01:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Iranian religions

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. ∞Who ?¿? 04:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-standard dupicate category. Merge into category:Religion in Iran and delete. CalJW 17:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No argument. siafu 12:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:English Americans

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who ?¿? 21:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be native UK'ers who are living in America... or Americans with an Anglo ethnicity. Judging by the current additions, most folks are interpreting it as the former. In which case it would be enormous and of dubious use. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 24 categories in category:European Americans but you have only nominated this one. It often seems that Englishness is the only ethnicity which isn't valued in this world, and I find this state of affairs offensive. CalJW 17:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you were offended. I only nominated this one because it was the only one I was aware of (it was recently added to an article on my watchlist) -- I find your knee-jerk suggestion that I don't value my own ethnicity a little offensive myself. It's not that I don't think an Anglo heritage is a worthwhile thing (I do genealogy too), it's that I think the category, were it properly populated, would be horrendously unwieldy. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Americans should just be Americans and all these categories should be abolished, but that isn't going to happen, so this one must stay too. Let's just leave people to populate it as and when they want to, that's how Wikipedia works. It certainly isn't unwieldy at the moment, and due to the lack of value placed on Englishness by many people, it is unlikely it will ever be one of the larger U.S. ethnic categories. CalJW 21:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it has anything to do with not valuing Englishness. I am myself an American of predominantly English ancestry, but my first reaction on seeing the name Category:English Americans was, "What's that supposed to mean???" The fact is, while there are people who call themselves African Americans, Japanese Americans, Italians Americans, and so forth, nobody uses the term "English Americans". Delete this category as perpetuating a neologism. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - That merely proves the point. It isn't much used because it isn't valued - unlike all the others (see the size of category:Italian-Americans). It isn't valued by the politically correct establishment in the UK either, but the English public is starting to rediscover its Englishness. Deleting this but not all the others is a slap in the face for a nation (and the fact that you have English ancestry makes this more insulting, not less so). CalJW 16:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you prefer Category:WASPs? Most (if not all - I have never encountered this term ever) English-Americans (the largest ethnic group in the United States) do not identify themselves as "English-Americans", there is no English-American (as opposed to WASP) article on wikipedia, and English-Americans, as it were, refer to themselves as either "White", "White Americans", or just "Americans", and when pressed on origin would be more likely to say "Anglo-Saxon" than "English". If you're insulted by this, it might be advisable to step back from the discussion rather than let it get heated. siafu 17:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I understand that the term WASP has been extended well beyond it's literal meaning. Someone created this and put some articles in it, and that should be enough. It isn't hard to understand. CalJW 00:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        There is an article British American (to which English American redirects); maybe we should rename the category Category:British Americans correspondingly. I doubt if most Americans of British origin know or care whether their ancestors were from England, Scotland, or Wales; indeed, most are probably a mixture. (This is in contrast to Irish Americans and those of "Scotch Irish" ancestry, who usually do know and often do care.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I (an American of Eurpoean descent) also think that name is confusing, and have never heard a single person described as such. However, since it lives within Category:European Americans, which lives in Category:American people by ethnicity and now Category:American people by national origin, it would probably be awkward to delete it. It would be great for someone to write a description of what belongs in the "English Americans" category for the category page. -- Reinyday, 14:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm an American of Eurpoean descent as well. I've never described myself as anything other than "American". Not European-American, not Hungarian-American. I'll be happy to vote to delete the others if they come up on CfD as well. --Kbdank71 14:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is no chance that most of the others would get deleted so keep this one for consistency. Osomec 16:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This ethnic group does not exist per se. siafu 18:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most ethnic subcats. -Splash^talk 14:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course this ethnic group exists. I've met some myself. Bhoeble 17:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ∞Who ?¿? 18:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a virtually empty category and a confusing term nobody actually uses. CDThieme 19:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note I previous accidentally closed this as delete, as I miscounted the votes, and the discussion leaned towards delete. However for numbers sake, 11 votes, 7 del, 4 k. 63% ∞Who ?¿? 21:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of 66.43.173.74

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who ?¿? 03:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, redundant. Only used by one editor. Erwin

Delete per above. CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The category has been used by several editors and the sockpuppet has created four identities in the past 24 hours, and has been blocked five times in the past 3 days. The sockpuppet categories are in any case created automatically by the sockpuppet template. The vandal has attacked several pages and it makes a lot more sense to keep the details of why the user is banned with the category than repeating it on each page. --Gorgonzilla 18:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: only editor making contributions is Gorgonzilla. Possible userfy to Gorgonzilla/Suspected sockpuppets of 66.43.173.74. Erwin

Delete or Hide for admin use only. Non-encyclopedic category, engages in speculation, gives troll(s) involved inappropriate public notoriety, public airing of dirty linen, vengeance-driven, etc. Wholly unbecoming; applies to all similar categories as well 12.73.195.231 00:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object the purpose of all of these categories are to track sockpuppets, as if that wasn't evident. Usually only if a particular user/ip creates a lot of socks and vandalizes a lot of pages, does the actual category get created, as they usually remain red links. Also, this was just recently created on 15 Sep. Some of the users listed were tagged by administrators. As for unencyclopedic, well yes, these are all administrative related categories unless you propose all of the subs of Category:Wikipedia be deleted as well. These are all necessary categories and should probably be handled in a different manner than the encyclopedic categories, possibly similar to proposed policies. ∞Who ?¿? 03:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this has administrative use. -Splash^talk 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Who. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 17:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Kbdank71 14:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note these types of categories should be handled in a different manner, whereas they are adminstrative and not encyclopedic in nature. ∞Who ?¿? 03:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Philippine associations

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. ∞Who ?¿? 03:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first category in this form I've seen and I've looked at most countries with more than 50 million people now. I have moved the 5 entries to the organisations, religion and society categories. Delete CalJW 02:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No argument. siafu 23:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's an 'association' anyway? -Splash^talk 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a club where no one likes anyone else? ∞Who ?¿? 03:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Filipino groups

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. ∞Who ?¿? 03:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few non-standard sub-cats in the Philippines menu. This one should be renamed to the standard form category:Ethnic groups of the Philippines. CalJW 02:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create category:'Filipino ethnic groups'(or Ethnic groups of the Philippines if you insist ) as a subset of Filipino groups? The groups is intended to include Filipinos outside the Philippines(e.g. Filipinos in Japan which I may write in the future) and other difficult to classify groups. --Jondel 03:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is non-standard. In order to improve navigability, we shouldn't have divergent names for standard subcategories. This is a well established convention. When a regular Wikipedia reader visits a national category for the first time he or she should know what subcategories to expect and where the articles on the topic that interests them will be filed - that is how a professional encyclopedia would work.

This category is particularly inappropriate because it is too vague - pop groups could legitimately be placed in it for example. The appropriate name for the category you are proposing is category:Overseas Filipinos which is consistent with category:Overseas Chinese. I will create as there are already several categories which belong in it. It will be a subcategory of Category:People of the Philippines, category:Filipino society and Category:Human migration. CalJW 18:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed. Osomec 18:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 23:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename consistency is important — particularly in categories which are a navigation, rather than an editorial tool. -Splash^talk 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rename to which? Are they already existing? No argument with ethnic group name but lets do it already=>Ethnic groups of the Philippines.--Jondel 06:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, that was my proposal anyway, which everyone was replying to. CalJW 16:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Science and technology by nation

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/Rename as proposed. ∞Who ?¿?

At present we have category:Science by nation and category:Technology by nation. All but two of the subcats are in the form "Science and technology in X" and are in both categories. I see little point in dividing at national level; the merger removes any doubt that things like inventors and aircraft belong in the category. Also, these are more categories which should use "country" as they are organised on state lines and are not culturally sensitive. Therefore:

Merge category:Science by nation and category:Technology by nation and name the new category category:Science and technology by country. It will need to be placed in both Category:Science and category:Technology.
Rename category:Australian science to category:Science and technology in Australia.
Rename category:Polish science and technology to category:Science and technology in Poland.

CalJW 00:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is a very good idea. However I wouldn't rename: category:Russian science and technology, category:Soviet science and technology, category:Polish science and technology, Brazilian science and technology and category:Australian science ( only category:Australian science to category:Australian science and technology if merging Science and Technology )

Listowy 09:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Interesting: why would you seperate those ones out particularly? -Splash^talk 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to give you same example: Let's talk, about Soviet science and technology. How should we translate this? It can't be translated: Science and technology in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), because now there is no USSR. Other way: Science and technology in Russia. Ok, but what about countires which are independent now... Of course, it's only my point of view and mayby I'm not right. However this is my answer :). Best wishes, Listowy 18:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename All of them. No reason to preserve inconsistency. Osomec 18:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename all. No argument. siafu 23:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge+rename all. I don't see any reason to retain a list of exceptions as suggested. -Splash^talk 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename, per nom. Keep it consistent on all. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 17:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Punk albums to Category:Punk rock albums

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. ∞Who ?¿? 03:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both categories serve the same purpose. Category:Punk albums has more articles, but Category:Punk rock albums has many more categories, presumably with many more albums therein. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge CalJW 00:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. Osomec 18:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No argument. siafu 23:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FWIW this is the tip of an iceberg, the Punk subcategories are pretty messy. A lot of articles are placed in both a category and its supercategory, and a lot of this seems to be due to various templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrofrog (talk • contribs) 03:11, 19 September 2005
- Oops, sorry about that. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, although I do see a tangled web, I think they should be merged, but manually (not by bot). ∞Who ?¿? 23:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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