Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 21
September 21
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no reason why this should not be renamed to the standard form category:Cricket by country. CalJW 23:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This category should not be renamed because they are not "by country". For the purposes of cricket, many English-speaking Caribbean countries are put together into a team called the "West Indies". This isn't a country, but is a nation for cricketing purposes. The same was true of East Africa, and then East and Central Africa. Also, for cricketing purposes "England" represents both England and Wales, jguk 05:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Would "Cricket by nation" be better? siafu 12:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't simply categorize cricketing nations, so the current title can't stay. Indeed, I think perhaps Category:Cricket by nation is what we're after. Only they aren't real nations, but I suppose they're close enough. Is there a name along the lines of "...by national team name..." or something? -Splashtalk 13:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename category:Cricket by country. The West Indies is as much a country as a nation. Osomec 16:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is, per the definition of nations, In a more strict sense, however, terms such as nation, ethnos, and peoples denominate a group of human beings, in contrast to country which denominates a territory, whereas state expresses a legitimised administrative and decision-making institution. Sam Vimes 16:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]- The West Indies isn't a nation any more than NATO is. It is purely an arrangement of convenience which exists only for cricketing purposes. Anyway, it shouldn't determine the whole debate, as the overall system is designed to be flexible. As the heading to category:Categories by country says "Not all of the countries in these subcategories are fully sovereign or currently exist" CalJW 17:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, fair point. Changing vote to rename Sam Vimes 17:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The West Indies isn't a nation any more than NATO is. It is purely an arrangement of convenience which exists only for cricketing purposes. Anyway, it shouldn't determine the whole debate, as the overall system is designed to be flexible. As the heading to category:Categories by country says "Not all of the countries in these subcategories are fully sovereign or currently exist" CalJW 17:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename category:Cricket by country Bhoeble 17:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming it Category:Cricket by country would make the whole thing look silly - we'd have to divide the Windies into six and merge England and Scotland. Of all the suggestions here, only "Cricketing nations" seems to describe the position accurately - they are national teams as recognised by the International Cricket Council, jguk 21:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename category:Cricket by country and write a note about the West Indies at the top of the page. England and Scotland are countries.Carina22 17:38, 27 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.
- 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 renamed. ∞Who?¿? 07:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC) made a bit of a noob mistake, capitalized the M in music, so I made a new category http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Jews_in_music and moved everything I listed in the old category to the new one so this old category is now defunct (I realise of should have done a cfr or speedy renaming Arnie587 23:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy, since nominator = creator. siafu 23:21, 21 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.
- 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 Motorcycle gangs into Motorcycle clubs --Kbdank71 14:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only entry is the general category Motorcycle club. No actual clubs are in the category, so it looks fairly worthless to me. TexasAndroid 20:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: seems to be redundant with Category:Motorcycle gangs, though I'd hazard that "club" is more NPOV. siafu 22:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC) -- Reverse Merge. (to clarify) siafu 13:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge far more clubs than gangs, and as siafu stated, more NPOV. ∞Who?¿? 05:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge Submitter changing my vote. TexasAndroid 13:32, 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Was CFDed back in late March 05, and the CFD reached No Conscensous. The category was emptied at some point in the CFD or aftermath, and appears to have remained empty for over five months now. While this qualifies it for Speedy, I'm putting it here instead because of the previous CFD and the No Conscensous. TexasAndroid 20:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Modern" constellations? I'm pretty sure they all qualify. Misnamed at best, empty, redundant. siafu 20:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I presume the title reflects the fact that the names of the constellations have changed over time, or something? Anyway, if it's sitting empty it may as well go. -Splashtalk 13:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP, modern constellations seem to have been migrated back into constellations for some reason. The difference between "constellation" and "modern constellation" is that not all classical, or traditional constellations are recognized as part of the official modern 88 constellations of the IAU (perhaps the category should be called IAU constellations). For instance, "the plough" or "big dipper", or "Argo Navis" (ancient greek constellation, split into 4 modern constellations) 132.205.45.110 18:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- needs to be repopulated
- It has been left empty for over five months. If, before this CFD ends, it can be repopulated, I will gladly change my vote. If not, then IMHO it has proved itself unneeded when it cannot be repopulated, even when under threat of deletion. TexasAndroid 21:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the anon's above assessment is accurate, it seems like a reasonable subcategory, so rename to reflect exactly what the standard of inclusion is, and repopulate. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if can be populated. I had no idea of the differences between modern and traditional constellations. Would be interesting to see the modern ones. :-) -Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 06:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this category was previously listed, see archived discussion for more info. ∞Who?¿? 08:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: at time of closing, it is still empty, so deleting. --Kbdank71 14:14, 28 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.
- 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 listify and delete --161.185.1.100 14:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into a true list, and delete. TexasAndroid 19:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 20:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just sad. Listify/delete. ∞Who?¿? 07:20, 25 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 14:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Naming a category after a propaganda slogan is not appropriate. There is a justificatory paragraph, but it misses the point. World War I and World War II were wars in the conventional sense, like the Thirty Years War and the War of the League of Augsburg, but the War on Terror is not, it is an anti-terrorist campaign. This should be renamed category:United States and Islamic militancy or something similar. If a new name cannot be agreed it should be deleted. CalJW 19:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename to Category:War on terrorism. The convention for sub-categories of Category:Wars is to place the category at the same name as the article describing the war; in this case, War on terrorism. I'll also note that a "... and Islamic militancy" category title would introduce far more NPOV problems than it would solve. Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. This is such a widely known term that any other terminology would seem to avoid our "most common usage" rules. It is however, as the nom points out, something of a propaganda phrase so is less than desirable. -Splashtalk 13:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. Osomec 16:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, bring this up with English speakers, and when they change Wikipedia will. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as per nominator. Bhoeble 17:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, but I don't think you can call it United States and Islamic militancy. The British, Spanish, etc. are also concerned as well. They've been bombed, too. The United States of America may be a driving force, but other countries are involved as well. -Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 06:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kirill Lokshin. ∞Who?¿? 07:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Aldux 13:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as requested. Non U.S. articles belong in the British, Spanish etc categories. Using George's propaganda slogan for non-U.S. articles is even worse than using it for U.S. articles. Carina22 17:43, 27 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Empty category. Looks like someone wanted to create an article, and got a category instead. Could someone with a bit more skill than I have please merge the information from the top into the Lake Parramatta, New South Wales article? TexasAndroid 17:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Added {{mergeto}}, wait until merge is completed then delete. ∞Who?¿? 07:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above Carina22 17:40, 27 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 13:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another one that is still with us because the decision which was taken some time ago to amend national transport(ation) catgories to reflect local usage was not implemented. Like the rest of the Indian subcontinent Nepal took its English from the UK. The article is already called Transport in Nepal and this category should be renamed category:Transport in Nepal. CalJW 16:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 22:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. These should be speedies. -Splashtalk 13:04, 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.
- 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?¿? 06:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only member, Khan, has only a small section on Khan as a surname. Does not appear to be a very useful category. TexasAndroid 16:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete surname categories. siafu 22:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete previous precedent set, inquire within if you need to see previous Cfds. ∞Who?¿? 06:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete before we have the Category:Smith surname. Plus it is mis-capitalized anyway. -Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 12:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, one article does not a category make. -Splashtalk 13:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmmm small you say, big article it may be, fool you it can. </yoda talk> ∞Who?¿? 17:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only members of specific prominent families are worth grouping by name, eg Rockefellers, Rothschilds. Osomec 18:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Carina22 17:44, 27 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.
- 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 --Kbdank71 13:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is is a subcategory of the US buildings and structures category, but there may be federal correctional institutions or the equivalent in the local language in other countries. Rename category:Federal Correctional Institutions in the United States. CalJW 16:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 22:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename category:United States federal correctional institutions. CDThieme 19:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as orgininally proposed Carina22 17:48, 27 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.
- 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?¿? 06:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Contains only one subcategory, Category:Human isolation, which has another parent category. While there are things that could be used to populate it, I don't really see the usefulness of a category that, as it itself describes, can include topics from psychology, physical science, and computer science. Overly broad. TexasAndroid 15:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too vague. CalJW 16:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Horrendously vague. siafu 22:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Amusing that it should contain a single, isolated, category. Populating it would be wrong on so many levels... -Splashtalk 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it likes being alone, add to Category:Sociophobia :) Delete. ∞Who?¿? 09:16, 25 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.
- 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?¿? 06:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category contains only the Indian city of the same name. Unless there's something else to place in the category, it appears to me to serve little purpose. TexasAndroid 15:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unable to find any articles to populate. siafu 22:15, 21 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.
- 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 both. ∞Who?¿? 06:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As far as I can tell, they are for the same thing, and the second is more standardly named. I think most of the first group are coming off of a template, so a simple change to that template would be enough to move most to the second category. (Assuming that's the descision) - TexasAndroid 14:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Dividing Wikipedians into antagonist groups is harmful. CalJW 16:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that, if they are to be deleted, I suspect that at least the first needs to go through Wikipedia:Templates for deletion rather than here, since it's a category linked to a template. I put it here originally because I only wanted to rename/merge the category, not disrupt the template. But I don't think the category can be correctly deleted out from under the template, without adressing the template itself. Then there's the issue of timing and sequence. You have two, split categories that need to be dealt with, and a template linked to only one of them. Category:Inclusionist could be moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, but that would leave Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians here, and the possibility of split results. IMHO, the best way to handle this would be to let the merge vote run to completion, and, assuming a successful merge, then you can submit the template for deletion, and the remaining single category will live or die on the fate of the template. TexasAndroid 16:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I also worry that the merge vote could get bogged down in arguments about deleting the whole set. If a debate begins here on whether or not to delete, I could easily see a No Conscensous ending up with the merge not even happening. The merge is kinda moot if they are deleted, but in the case of Keep or No Conscensous, the merge really does need to happen. So that's another reason IMHO to have the deletion debate elsewhere/elsewhen. TexasAndroid 17:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. Another worthless, juvenile vanity page, making Wikipedia look like another worthless, juvenile ego-driven website. 12.73.198.116 20:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. Or just merge if no consensus to delete. siafu 22:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Debating the deletion of Inclusionist Wikipedians will have to include the Deletionists (as well as the Mergists, Exlusionists, ad nauseum) ala meta:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians. -Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 13:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both, or merge in case of emergency. Are there cats for the other -isms it is possible to be inflicted with? People should keep these on their accounts on meta is they want them. -Splashtalk 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Osomec 16:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all inclusionists. CDThieme 19:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Roby Wayne Talk • Hist Havok (T/C) 14:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. Carina22 17:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note. The template does not need a category, it can be used on userpages and it already has a link that points to m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. If someone wants to TFD it, thats a seperate issue outside the scope of CFD. ∞Who?¿? 06:00, 28 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.
- 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?¿? 05:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless vanity. No encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a social forum. Delete Then Delete Category:Wikipedians who golf which only exists to hold the minigolf category and increase the exposure of the one entry. CalJW 07:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Couldn't've said it better myself. 12.73.198.116 20:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. siafu 22:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Osomec 15:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Why delete? We've already established elsewhere that Wikipedians categories don't have to directly serve an encyclopedic purpose. -Seth Mahoney 21:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where, and we don't all have to agree. I'd wipe the lot. CalJW 02:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course we don't all have to agree. I'm just asking, what possible reason is there for deleting these categories that never appear on Wikipedia articles? If users want to categorize themselves, why not? It can only help users with similar interests find each other, which will likely help to improve article quality. -Seth Mahoney 17:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- People keep putting them in topic categories where they are seen by casual readers (who outnumber regular editors by maybe a thousand to one). I think that makes Wikipedia look vain and amateurish. CalJW 05:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really an argument for deleting this category, its an argument for not putting it in an article category, which should already be policy. -Seth Mahoney 09:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- People keep putting them in topic categories where they are seen by casual readers (who outnumber regular editors by maybe a thousand to one). I think that makes Wikipedia look vain and amateurish. CalJW 05:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course we don't all have to agree. I'm just asking, what possible reason is there for deleting these categories that never appear on Wikipedia articles? If users want to categorize themselves, why not? It can only help users with similar interests find each other, which will likely help to improve article quality. -Seth Mahoney 17:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where, and we don't all have to agree. I'd wipe the lot. CalJW 02:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I voted to keep Wikipedians in State and Wikipedians using certain browsers as I think they can help with finding people to help do testing and regionally co-located individuals for enhancing related articles. I am neutral on Wikiedpians job skills. Wikipedians who program could be important as well as Wikipedians who are journalists. But, going so far as Wikipedians who play golf--we'd end up with Wikipedians that play marbles, Wikipedians that swim and Wikipedians that garden. I dunno--I think the relative usefulness of the categories diminishes as the category scope broadens. But, where do you draw the line. Are Wikipedian Musicians any less important than Wikipedians in New Jersey? I guess location is objective and your skill at music is subjective. -Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 06:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not wikipedians who play marbles? The category might help those wikipedians who do play marbles get together and improve related articles. (Okay, maybe articles is a stretch.) -Seth Mahoney 09:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Bhoeble 19:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as requested Carina22 17:46, 27 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.
- 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?¿? 05:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category name is erroneous as most of its contents do not in fact cover municipal history; rather, they cover metropolitan area history. I think it should be renamed History by city - for ambiguity. Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Should this be Category:History by urban area? 132.205.45.110 18:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's stick to normal everyday English. There will be some variation in the content due to international differences in usage, but city is clearly the primary term. Rename category:History by city. CalJW 19:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. "City" is not so ambiguous as to be truly problematic. siafu 22:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. Osomec 16:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Too many categories have been changed recently to be more inclusive of towns, villages, cities, etc. --Kbdank71 15:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't what is being proposed, in fact it is closer to the opposite of what is proposed. I am not sure that there is a single entry for a place that is properly a municipality. I have discovered from my recent work on the national menus of many countries that the main official use of the around the world is as a name for minor subdivisions across a whole country, including rural areas not for urban settlements. But in the English speaking world city is overwhelmingly the main term for large urban settlements (and there is nothing in the category which is close to being a mere town). CalJW 05:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:History by city. Many countries don't have municipalities, and in many that do there are lots in each major city. All countries have cities (apart from a few mincrostates maybe, but that isn't relevant). Bhoeble 19:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:History by city. Use the common term. Carina22 17:45, 27 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.
- 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?¿? 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to standard form Category:Natural history of Chile (see category:Natural history by country) CalJW 02:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 22:20, 21 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.
- 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?¿? 02:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Manchester United with Category:Manchester United F.C. - these are duplicate entries under Category:English football clubs. The later version should be kept for consistency with the other categories. josh 00:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no, abbreviations... Oh well, they all have em.. Merge. ∞Who?¿? 06:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/delete Bhoeble 17:49, 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.