Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 28

< August 27	August 29 >

August 28

Leftover Wikipedians by interest

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that category:Wikipedians by interest is cleaned up, here are some stragglers.

Check these categories’ ubercategories for styles (though I couldn’t quite shoehorn the sewing category into category:Wikipedian sewers for obvious reasons). I still haven’t found the determination to tackle the international rugby, soccer, and cricket categories in category:Wikipedians interested in watching sports, though.--Mike Selinker 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Thryduulf 01:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be renaming Category:Wikipedians who like to crochet to two different names?
- I've corrected the "Brucknerites" and "Wagnerites" proposals (the former was proposed to be renamed to "Wikipedians who listen to Richard Wagner" and vice versa!)
- I think a better name for Category:Wikipedians invovled in academic philosophy is Category:Wikipedian academic philosophers or Category:Wikipedian academics who are philosophers. The category description clearly states it is for Philosophy professors and philosophy (under-)graduates, rather than just those with an interest in the topic. Also, "academic philosophy" sounds to me like a type of philosophy (cf. existentialist philosophy) rather than people who are academics working in any field of philosophy. Thryduulf 01:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops, whoops, and I agree, in that order. See fixed entries above.--Mike Selinker 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Renaming Category:Birder Wikipedians to Wikipedian birders may be more appropriate than Category:Wikipedians interested in birds, since birding is more specific than a simple interest in birds. - EurekaLott 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, after reading the article, I still have no idea what birders do that birdwatchers do not. But I certainly have no problem adjusting that nomination. Fixed.--Mike Selinker 23:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm very interested in birds, but not of the feathered variety. Perhaps birders would be better then? :) --kingboyk 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (clue: I'm British)[reply]
Support with a couple thoughts:

There are more motor vehicles on the road than just cars. I think motorists, is likely the better term (and also avoids the issue of truck vs lorry), but I suppose I wouldn't oppose substituting "motor vehicles" for "cars", but only if absolutely necessary.
Category:Wikipedians who like sewing and Category:Wikipedians who like crocheting sound more appropriate.

- Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all -Doc 20:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Five tool players

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Subjective. The category refers to baseball players who can "hit for average, power, run well, field well and throw well". There's simply no way to quantify any of these terms in any real way. Unless you choose statistical marks to decide who can "run well" and "throw well" then you're going to have users adding and deleting players at random. And again, who gets to define what "throwing well" is? I say just ditch it, there are plenty of categories for other baseball awards and achievements, such as hitting 500 home runs in ones career Mglovesfun 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Latest thinking, that sounds a bit better but only rephrases the problem rather than solving it. Now you're simply going on the opinion one single journalist. Like the phrase that says "Mays was the first five-tool player" well there's a verifiable citation that I've seen on the web, but there might be 1000 journalists out there that disagree. To me it's still POV. Nothing personal but I'm thinking still delete. Mglovesfun 00:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I may just not understand the intent of WP:NPOV, but it was my understanding that documenting POV external to Wikipedia in an objective way is acceptable and even desirable. I thank you for your attention to the revision I made. Erechtheus 01:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can smell the POV disputes coming if this one stays. — Dale Arnett 08:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to weak keep after reading Erechtheus' comments. I can still see a chance of POV problems, but if the category is regularly monitored per Erechtheus, those may be minimized. However, I won't object if the final decision is to delete. — Dale Arnett 00:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what happens when Erechtheus leaves or decides to move on to something else? Depending on one person to ride shotgun does not seem like a good justification. Vegaswikian 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Isn't that a problem inherent in any article, category, or other item here? It's never a good idea to depend on one person to ride shotgun, which is why we have multiple editors with autonomy. As I understand it, the whole point of a category is to create a standard and apply it. That's what I'm trying to get the ball rolling on in this case. Erechtheus 01:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well editors can watch articles of interest. Editors can watch categories of interest. Editors, can not automatically watch entries in categories of interest. There are a lot of categories that fill up with articles that should be in a different category. Creating a category that seems to be likely to get articles that are not appropriate for it and would be hard for the average editor to quickly determine if those articles belong or don't is problematic. In most categories today any editor can determine with a quick check if the article belongs or not. Vegaswikian 05:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Twittenham 08:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the creator of the category. The intent for this category is to list players who have been described by verifiable and proper sources as being five tool players. There should be no POV dispute or NPOV problem with this. If there is a valid citation, the player is in. I have clarified the intent in the category itself. Erechtheus 00:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I could argue both sides of this, but I think when it comes down to it, it's still POV. What if two credible sports authorities disagree on a player being "five-tool"? I understand the arguments about a standard, but the standard so far as I see it isn't strong enough. If there were some sort of mathematical standard to judge against I'd be all for it - this is baseball, after all. --Colage 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What if two credible authorities disagree about anything? That should be a topic for the player article. As long as there is a viable source that can be cited to, the player is in. Let's remember the purpose of categories -- the five tool player designation is a controversial one, and this category will help users access players who are arguably five tool players to explore the issue. I think the fact that this is an enduring non-quantifiable baseball standard is what makes it so notable and worthy of coverage. We don't give up because of controversy around here -- if we did, there would be no article on George W. Bush or any other figure that attracts both vandalism and better reasoned opposing views.Erechtheus 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nearly all of these players are already listed in the Five-tool player article. The rest should be added to the article before deletion of the category. The article is the better place for this, since it also shows the criticism for the term as well (retaining NPOV as suggested in comments above). - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nuanced subjects like this are better served by articles where they can be explained and referenced. - EurekaLott 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Children`s television shows

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Children's television series. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete per nom. David Kernow 02:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, as we already have Category:Children's television to handle individual one-off programs. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Dugwiki 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Her Pegship - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Emerson Representatives

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Spam. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 14:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's obvious free advertising, just read it. Mglovesfun 21:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, since it's apparently empty except for a single article? (and the only non-deleted "see also" is also listed in that article.) - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 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.

Middle-earth places

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn --Kbdank71 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match the rest of category:Middle-earth places.--Mike Selinker 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I think. Shouldn't it be the others that change in order to match their real-life counterparts in Category:Landforms by country (e.g. Category:Mountains of Greenland, Category:Islands of Yemen)? The only complication is that to match the real life cats, the cities and castles cats would have to use in, but that seems ok to me. ×Meegs 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at category:Fictional locations, all the property-based subcategories use "(property) locations." So I think it makes sense to follow that here.--Mike Selinker 13:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it makes sense for Star Wars, Pokemon and DC Comics to operate that way because their cats are named for the source material not the setting (world/continent/country). There're Category:Locations in the Honorverse and Category:Places of Morrowind more like this one, which is not called Tolkien places. ×Meegs 15:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I buy that logic. Okay, I withdraw this nomination, and I'll relist the other direction.--Mike Selinker 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Scriptwriters

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Screenwriters. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think; not all scriptwriters are screenwriters...? David Kernow 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague and superfluous one item category. We already have Category:Screenwriters, Category:Television writers, Category:Dramatists and playwrights and Category:Speechwriters. Twittenham 08:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only form mentioned in the one article is cinema, so I have moved the article to category:Screenwriters. Twittenham 08:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant/duplicate. Honbicot 14:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above I think all or almost all of these writers already fall under one of the other existing categories mentioned. Dugwiki 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. As for Twittenham's examples, place all those cats as sub categories of Category:Scriptwriters - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the nomination and I voted delete, so please don't lean on me for support. Twittenham 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Editing for clarity : ) - Jc37 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If there was demand for this category it would have been created a long time ago. I don'd consider it helpful in any way. Golfcam 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Category People and self

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Charmer Extraordinaire, All-star hunk, Universal Heartthrob and Part-time Wonderboy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unclear title. David Kernow 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems to be some sort of self-promotion? Whatever it is, it's unclear. Mglovesfun 00:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what is it saying? Michael 08:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - <rofl>, I have to admit that it made me laugh : ) - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Festivals of Nepal

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Festivals in Nepal, convention of Category:Festivals by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does "in" suggest they may also take place elsewhere (e.g. in preceeding or subsequent years) whereas "of" suggest they are to be associated with Nepal, thereby to be preferred...? David Kernow 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like, of the remaining 2 items in the category, Dasain is "in", and Teej is "of". So, while both are "of Nepal", only Dasain occurs "in Nepal". The same issue is repeated throughout Category:Festivals by country. I suggest that the convention be changed to "of". (which means, at this point, I Oppose) - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Erechtheus 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Culture of Nepal

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Nepalese culture, convention of Category:Culture by nationality. I would support a grand rename to match this format, but having one different from the others makes no sense. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Honbicot 14:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Erechtheus 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, agreeing with nom's secondary idea. Anything that can be practiced outside the country, and yet still be considered "of" the country should not use "in". Culture, language, festivals, and the like, I would presume, would fall under this. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category:Nepalese culture per convention. Twittenham 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Superbitches

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting idea, but overly subjective. Unclear inclusion criteria. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely subjective matter of opinion for undefined term that has as much meaning as "supermodel", another subjective and vague category that was previously deleted. The reasons to delete this category is not too far from the reason to delete the supermodel category. Agent 86 00:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up. It also crossed my mind that, despite being implied, there is nothing to limit this "category" from being applied to real people. Agent 86 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely subjective criteria for inclusion. it would be like creating Category:Superstuds or Category:Superjerks.--Gonzalo84 12:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Colage 04:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gosh, I thought this was a category for female dog show superstars. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move information to article, and then Delete. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 20:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Imposters of Doc glasgow

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

The result of the debate was found deleted --Kbdank71 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Imposters of Doc glasgow.

Hardly imposters, just boring trolls. So, over more than a year a bunch of unrelated people have created accounts to attack me, so what? No reason to lump them together, no reason to categorise them. Please delete. --Doc 21:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Doc.--MONGO 21:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Doc. That goes for Category:Imposters of Bastique as well. Bastique▼^parler _voir 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How will we keep score? Without these categories, I won't know whether I'm cooler or less cool than other admins. Delete. This and all similar. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DENY Naconkantari 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um Speedy Delete per sensible. (→Netscott) 23:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I only have three imposters and it makes me feel inferior. the wub "?!" 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - I agree with several of the concepts listed in the [[[WP:DENY]] essay, including what this would fall under. (Oh, and Delete wub's, if it exists, too : ) - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:United States state and territorial flag images

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Andrew c 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States state and territorial flag images to Category:Images of United States state and territorial flags

Rename. To match proposed change for Category:United States city flag images. Comment was that Images should be the first word in the name for image categories. Vegaswikian 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Vegaswikian. David Kernow 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Vegaswikian - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fairtrade settlements

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an award handed out by a group of activists is not a defining characteristic of a city. This category is inherently POV as it brings disproportionate attention to a minor attribute and the issue is already covered by a list. Athenaeum 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although not the most important feature of any settlement, it is a worthy designation. As Fairtrade Town explains it is not quite an award handed out by a group of activists but does require, among other things, a vote by the local council. And so far it is notable for the small number of settlements in the category. -- RHaworth 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The local council has to agree to serve freetrade tea and coffee in its canteens (and if we have a category for that, maybe we should have categories by the colour of carpet councils have chosen) and to agree that it would like the award. Not exactly notable or difficult stuff! Landolitan 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category reflects a notable item for the article placed within it. categories may with validity be created for notabole attiributes of small elements of an article. Fiddle Faddle 20:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
note that there has been a prior discussion regarding this category at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_26#Fairtrade_categories - Fiddle Faddle 21:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept or no consensus, rename to Category:Settlements awarded Fairtrade Town status. David Kernow 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a trivial characteristic. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used by special interest groups. Landolitan 08:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bristol has hundreds of characteristic more significant than this. Twittenham 08:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and just not important enough. Honbicot 14:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A proprietary designation, not a natural classification, and not from a major international NGO. The guidelines set forth in Fairtrade Town, IMHO, make status either so easy as to be trivial or so subjective as to be meaningless. -choster 15:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. Calsicol 09:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Trivial and also an improper use of Wikipedia's server space. Hawkestone 11:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this might be some sort of scheme in the developing world, but seeing as how it contains such places as Bristol (a run of the mill English city) the whole thing is quite clearly nonsense. --kingboyk 17:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note that the editor who nominated this category for deletion did not necessarily assume good faith and nominated it after being asked to join mediation after their actions on another matter. This revision of their talk page shows a formal warning for incivility. The current revision has been wholly edited to remove this prior to their statement that they have left. While this will not necessarily have a bearing on the outcome of the consensus here it is likely that this category was nominated in a hostile frame of mind, one where the best decisions are not always made. In short this category is the victim of a set of disputed edits elsewhere. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this absurd category. It is misleading because it applies to councils more than to cities, and it is ultra-trivial even in relation to the councils. Wimstead 21:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though the stated conditions under which this category was nominated concern me, Merge to List of settlements awarded Fairtrade Town status in the United Kingdom and then Delete the category. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete It is completely irrelevant why it was nominated as all nominations of bad categories are welcome and there are many categories which deserve to be deleted but don't get nominated as it is a lot easier to create one than to nominate one for deletion. Golfcam 20:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Canadian baseball players who surpass 100 RBI's

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

The result of the debate was listify and delete --Kbdank71 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Rather than starting this category, I suspect it would be more valuable to create an article listing the top seasons by Canadian major league players in various statistical categories. 100 RBIs is something of an arbitrary line to draw, and a single article would be better than having numerous categories for various areas (hits, RBI, HRs, steals, etc.). MisfitToys 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept or no consensus, at least rename to Category:Canadian baseball players who surpass 100 RBIs or Category:Canadian baseball players surpassing 100 RBIs. David Kernow 02:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. Vegaswikian 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a single article instead (as above). The category is too narrow. Mglovesfun 00:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete per nom. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete, per precedent on recent football categories. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

category:Games magazines to category:Game magazines

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusion with GAMES Magazine. I'd also be fine with category:Gaming magazines.--Mike Selinker 16:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The current form is correct English. I think confusion is fairly unlikely but if either of them is to be changed it should be Category:GAMES magazines. Athenaeum 19:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't even a category, so the potential confusion is a complete non-issue. Athenaeum 19:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are three articles (GAMES Magazine, GAMES World of Puzzles, and GAMES 100) which could all go under a category called category:GAMES Magazine. I'd like to create that, but it would be really confusing now.--Mike Selinker 00:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at Category:Magazines, it appears that similar subcategories usually use the singular version for a subcategory's topic. For example, there is a subcategory that uses the singular "Hobby" (Category:Hobby magazines) instead of "Hobbies magazines". Also Category:Student magazines, not "Students" and Category:Consumer magazines, not "Consumers". So I'm not sure Athenaeum is correct about "Games magazines" necessarilly being "correct English". Either form might be acceptable. Dugwiki 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, consumer magazines and student magazines are those for consumers and students, not about them; the comparison to hobby magazines is clearer. Muddying the issue, there's Category:Sports magazines. MisfitToys 21:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as parallel to Category:Hobby magazines, also Youth, Music, Trade, and Wildlife. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support Category:Gaming magazines -- ProveIt ^(talk)

Rename to Category:Gaming magazines. David Kernow 02:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any rename to include Gaming in the category name. Gaming is an ambiguous name. Vegaswikian 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, you are right. Nevermind... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Proposal addresses a non-existent problem. Honbicot 14:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current name is the least ambiguous and the most gramatically correct. -Sean Curtin 00:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The issue is a question of singular and plural. We say "Computer and video game magazines" not "Computer and video games magazines". Same for "Role-playing game magazines". So in this case "Game magazines" is more correct grammatically - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:History of United Kingdom literatures

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Andrew c 02:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of United Kingdom literatures to Category:History of literature in the United Kingdom

Rename, Awkwardly named category. Tim! 16:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Twittenham 18:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Contemporary history of the United Kingdom

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Contemporary history of the United Kingdom into Category:History of the United Kingdom

Merge, Non-maintained category, should be merged with the more general category. Tim! 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect?) per Tim! David Kernow 02:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Who is to say what "contemporary" means. The first item I looked at dates from 1907. If the overall category is to be subdivided chronologically clearer designations should be used. Landolitan 08:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, agreeing about the dubiousness of contemporary in this case. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Living child actors & Category:Living teenage actors

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too many subcategories. Are you going to create categories for dead child and teenage actors, as well ? Come on. There is already category for living people, which is more than enough in this case.
Delete per nom. --M @r ē ino 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All "living X" categories on sight. Osomec 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Arual 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual for living/dead categories. ×Meegs 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created a template, based on {{age}} (which I also created), that automatically categorizes actors as "child" or "teenager" based on their current age. I though other readers would be interested to know whether their favorite young actors are in their teens or not. Once the {{child actor birth date}} is placed on their page, the actor is automatically assigned as child, teen, or former child actor. On their 13th birthday, they advance automatically to teen; for their 20th, they become a 'former child actor'. What's wrong with this system? --Uncle Ed 14:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds pretty complicated. Would we rely on a bot to check the template's output and change the category? This kind of thing would not be possible for other dated or active/inactive or living/dead cats, so it might set a bad precedent. ×Meegs 03:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Living people should not be subdivided. Calsicol 09:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 08:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While I sympathise with Uncle Ed because it seems like it could be useful, it sounds like "living" is potentially a problematic issue. I was going to suggest renaming, when I found Category:Child actors and Category:American child actors (etc) already exist. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Foreign words

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Words by language --Kbdank71 15:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign words into Category:English words of foreign origin

Merge, a fork. While we are here, we also have to merge category:Dutch words into Category:Dutch loanwords, etc., and rename Category:Latin words and the likes. Or do it vice versa, but kill the damn multipronged fork.

If someone is going to provide and rationale for the status quo, let me tell them that vast majority of contributors are not expert linguists and eventually screw up any smart division, with so many foreign words here to come. E.g., Category:Latin words is an vast abyss or abysmal vastness. `'mikka (t) 08:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Many of the words are not English words of any kind. Rename Category:Words by language. Casper Claiborne 10:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"(English) words by language of origin"...? Regards, David Kernow 12:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Words by language. No claim is made that these words have migrated into English. Carina22 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Words by language per Carina. That's about the most obvious subcategory to have in Category:words, but it is missing. Cloachland 02:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Words by language per Carina22. Mike Peel 08:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: These cats were not tagged for deletion, so they're being relisted for another week. Original discussion here. --Kbdank71 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Words by language per Casper Claiborne. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Illuminati

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Marvel Comics Illuminati members --Kbdank71 15:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Illuminati to Category:Marvel Illuminati

Completing incomplete nomination by User:69.171.105.146. Discussion on Category talk:Illuminati suggested it to avoid confusion with secret societies and the like. Adding "members" on the end may be appropriate. No vote. TimBentley (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Marvel Comics Illuminati members to match other disambiguated category titles. -Sean Curtin 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Sean Curtin. TimBentley (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Illuminati (Marvel Comics) (to match the article name) or, second best, Category:Marvel Comics Illuminati. Category:Illuminati is clearly unsuitable; I think Category:Marvel Illuminati isn't the best either as it gives no real indication of what the category is about. I can't be alone in knowing of the illumunati but not this comic? --kingboyk 17:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Illuminati (Marvel Comics) as per kingboyk. Marvel Illuminati is too vague and potentially confusing. Adding "members" after Illuminati may be appropriate. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Polish music competitions

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish music competitions to Category:Music competitions in Poland

Completing incomplete nomination by User:Kurieeto. Oppose, already same format as subcategories of Category:Music festivals by country. TimBentley (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~If there's an identifiable corpus of "Polish music", then perhaps the rename is wise...?~~
Rename per below. David Kernow 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC), converted to vote 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The two competitions included are international, as are many music competitions held in other countries. Festivals and competitions are different things, but in any case the festivals categories should also be renamed to "in Foo". Twittenham 08:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The current name is misleading. Honbicot 14:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Twittenham Calsicol 09:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Twittenham - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:USHL players

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:USHL players to Category:United States Hockey League players

Completing incomplete nomination by User:Mike Selinker. Rename, expand abbreviation per convention for other leagues. TimBentley (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how I missed that. Well, as is obvious, rename.--Mike Selinker 16:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Former child actors

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to child actors, which categorizes all child actors former or present, old or young, living or dead. Arual 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not necessery, just see definition of a child actor. (Kyleall 16:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as above Dugwiki 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Twittenham 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sittacene

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because it contains only one tiny article, which is about an ancient city of which apparently almost nothing is known. Brammen 12:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Twittenham 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep it is a category which is part of a series of categories of ancient regions (see Category:Lycia for example, and are being populated as articles are created; WP has a nice habit of keeping lots of categories of things that never existed, let's try to keep one about something that did. Btw, for full disclosure: I created the category but no one bothered to notify me about the CfD. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I have added several other articles to the category. If Brammen and Twittenham care about this, they could do likewise. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Carlossuarez46 - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Online games

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

The result of the debate was relisted here, internet games was not tagged for deletion. --Kbdank71 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online games into Category:Internet games

Merge, Stared at them for a while; can't see the difference. Marasmusine 07:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't either, but I'd suggest a reverse merge. I think online games is a more common usage than internet games.--Mike Selinker 16:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Category:Internet games into Category:Online games - Note that the main article for both categories is called Online game. So therefore it would make sense if the associated category is likewise called Category:Online games. Dugwiki 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge as per above - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Khyber Teaching Hospital

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review and convert to article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Khyber Teaching Hospital is now an article. Vegaswikian 05:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for a category. Twittenham 08:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. David Kernow 17:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedians by technology

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two templates: Wikipedians who use X, and Wikipedians who play X (games only). I didn't like the past tense on category:Wikipedian home computer owners 1975-1990 or its subcategories (as there may well be current users of the Commodore line, say), so I'm for putting them in with the other systems. I haven’t touched Wikipedians by website, Wikipedians by software, or Wikipedian programmers yet.--Mike Selinker 04:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. --Cswrye 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all except:
- category:Wikipedians who contribute in cybercafés to category:Wikipedians who contribute from cybercafés as people may use internet cafe's to do something other than contribute to Wikipedia.
- category:GNU/Linux users and category:Linux users should be merged into category:Wikipedians who use Linux or category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux.
- Category:Wikipedians who use a C64 should be merged with or become a subcat of Category:Wikipedians who use Commodore computers. If it is a subcat then renamed as suggested. Thryduulf 02:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fixed the latter two. I prefer "who use cybercafes" over the "contribute" format, because "use" makes no claim about what is being used for what.--Mike Selinker 04:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Once again, thank you for taking on another thankless task. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all the ones that already have "Wikipedians" in the current category name, Rename the others, and also rename category:Wikipedians who use a C64 for consistency. Mango juice^talk 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changing category:BOINC Users to category:Wikipedians who use BOINC platforms, at least unless the word "platforms" is removed. BOINC is a platform, and it is therefore redundant wording. --BlueSquadronRaven 07:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I thought it was an adjective. I fixed that one.--Mike Selinker 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -Doc 20:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, except as follows:

to category:Wikipedians who use 1600x1200 screen resolution
to category:Wikipedians who use computers with AMD processors (computers with) - You use the computer, the computer uses the processor : )
to category:Wikipedians who use Bluetooth technology
to category:Wikipedians who use the Sega Dreamcast (use vs play) - one uses the device to play games. Though the cat itself says "own" in the description, so perhaps use -> own.
to category:Wikipedians who use dual monitor configurations
to category:Wikipedians who use personal computers
to category:Wikipedians who use personal digital assitants
to category:Wikipedians who use Powerbook G4 notebook computers
to category:Wikipedians who use computers with Intel processors
to category:Wikipedians who use Zen Nanos or MuVo N200s - They seem to be roughly the same thing with a branding difference?
Oppose renaming category:Wikipedians who contribute in cybercafés (in -> from, would be fine). A user doesn't use the building as one uses a pencil. I suppose that you could say category:Wikipedians who frequent cybercafes but that's not how the cat is defined.
to category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers
to category:Wikipedians by computer brand,

And I have to agree: You deserve thanks for taking on this task (looks around to see if I happen to have a barnstar or something in my pocket somewhere : ) - Jc37 20:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I amended all nominations to reflect your suggestions, except the "play Dreamcast" one (all other videogame systems are "play"). I'm withdrawing the cybercafe one; it seems qualitatively different from the rest. I also don't know how you want the "computer brand" populated, so I left that one alone.--Mike Selinker 23:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still am in favour of in -> from for the cybercafe cat name. Perhaps a separate listing?

category:Wikipedian home computer owners 1975-1990 to category:Wikipedian personal computer users or category:Wikipedians by computer brand (if you can think of a better name, please suggest it), made into a sub category of category:Wikipedians by technology, and populated with:

I standardized the naming of each. Hope this helps. - Jc37 23:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- My reaction to this is that the "personal" is unnecessary, as it's only needed to distinguish between gigantor computers and itty-bitty ones, and most of us use the latter. But I certainly like the "by computer brand" idea, and don't really think it's needed to be debated here (that is, you can just do it).--Mike Selinker 23:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and/or group as above. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Citytv network shows

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Citytv network shows to Category:CHUM television shows

Completing incomplete nomination by User:Dl2000 with reason "general CHUM TV cat is proposed; some shows appear on A Channel, Much, etc." No vote. TimBentley (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's see if I've got this straight - CHUM Limited owns Citytv and A-Channel. Category:CHUM Limited already exists. After reading through the information of all of this, I think I have to Oppose, though it looks like it all could use some clarification. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Consumer electronics companies

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Andrew c 01:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Consumer electronics companies to Category:Consumer electronics retailers

Completing incomplete nomination by User:Hooperbloob with reason "needs renaming to avoid confusion". Rename, it is for companies that sell consumer electronics, not make them. TimBentley (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per TimBentley. David Kernow 02:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Tim - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional rivalries

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional rivalries to Category:Fictional rivals

Completing incomplete nomination by User:Tgunn2. No vote. TimBentley (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this time, I see no reason to delete. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:XBLA games

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:XBLA games to Category:Xbox Live Arcade games

Rename, A more understandable title. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Another abreviation. Vegaswikian 17:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename expanding an abbrev. : ) - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:XBLA 360 games

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:XBLA 360 games to Category:Xbox 360 Live Arcade games

Rename, A more understandable title. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, XBLA gets 750,000 ghits. Articles like Pac-Man and Frogger have an extremely long list of categories at the bottom, there's no need to make them longer. --Interiot 04:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Another abreviation. Vegaswikian 07:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Thunderbrand 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename expanding an abbrev. : ) - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Archaeological sites in Britain to Category:Archaeological sites in the United Kingdom

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as per naming convention Mal 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Not eligible for speedy. Britain and the UK are not the same. Osomec 22:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The category is a sub-cat of Category:Archaeological sites by country - Britain is not a country (or at least is not the proper nomenclature for the country). The articles and cats within are UK-related. --Mal 04:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of that makes it eligible for speedy. The issue is not whether the proposal is right or wrong but rather whether this category is eligible for speedy renaming. If items which are not eligible are allowed to pass the system will be wide open to abuse. It appears that a distinction is being made between the island of Ireland and the island of Great Britain, which makes some sense in archaeological terms. Osomec 10:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It makes sense in archaelogical terms to have a category and an article based on continent (Europe for example). After that, the categories and articles are split into Category:Archaeological sites by country. Britain is not a country, therefore - according to wikipedia naming conventions - this category should be renamed to reflect a country, and not an island. --Mal 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Why is Mal having difficulty accepting the rules? ReeseM 01:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me? Which rules exactly? If there is a rule I have broken, feel free to point it out to me (I suggest using my talk page instead of here). --Mal 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I dunno, but now it's here, and we can argue about the merits of it. I say rename.--Mike Selinker 03:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Ratarsed 14:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, but this is not based on the naming conventions. The category was created by a British user who almost certainly knew what he was doing and there are good reasons for using "Britain", indeed if this was a specialist archaeology reference it would be the right thing to do. Osomec 18:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and add the Irish/Northern Irish category. Honbicot 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or have Britain as a subcategory of the UK. --kingboyk 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate issues here. Ancient Britain, and Archaeological sites by country. I suggest:

Create Category:Archaeological sites in the United Kingdom.
Add Category:Archaeological sites in England, Category:Archaeological sites in Scotland, Category:Archaeological sites in Wales, Category:Archaeological sites in England, and Category:Archaeological sites in Ireland (and any other cats appropriate) as sub-categories to that.
Rename Category:Archaeological sites in Britain to Category:Archaeological sites in Ancient Britain, and add it to Category:Archaeological sites in the United Kingdom. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to ...UK, but oppose strongly Category:Archaeological sites in Ancient Britain. Ancient Britian is not a place. Any articles there should go in the appropriate subcategory by place Category:Archaeological sites in England etc. We have separate time categories such as Category:Late Antiquity, Category:Roman Britain, Category:Neolithic, Category:Mesolithic, etc. already. Bejnar 04:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kingboyk and Jc37. My reason for nomination in the first place was that I was trying to sort out some categories as part of the Northern Ireland WikiProject, and I couldn't find a category to add Category:Archaeological sites in Northern Ireland to. Obviously Northern Ireland is not part of Britain.. but it is part of the country United Kingdom. --Mal 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename to Category:Archaeological sites in the United Kingdom. I agree with Mal, I was trying to place an Orkneys site, and it wasn't on the island of Britain, nor was it really in Scotland. Bejnar 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People who exploit the deaths of dead American soldiers in political advertisements

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

The result of the debate was DELETE utter rubbish. -Doc 13:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Hopelessly POV, created by sock with history of vandalsim. Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - pure junk, empty category.
speedly delete. I disagree with the "pure junk" comment above. There isnt enough content to qualify as "junk" so its much worse. :) --Cat out 02:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - huge POV problems. Dugwiki 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--Gonzalo84 12:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible. Mglovesfun 21:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blantantly political. Calsicol 09:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- pov problems galore. - Longhair 12:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Kurdish inhabited regions

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Hopelessly pov category with a vaigue definition (the traditional Kurdish-inhabited area is not a verifiable/reliable region (by whoes standards will we determine borders?)). A similar nom was a delete. Two previous nominations of this very category (nom 1, nom 2) was a no consensus. --Cat out 01:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept or no consensus, rename to Category:Regions with a Kurdish majority. David Kernow 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC), converted to request 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous discussions. Calsicol 09:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Rename per David Kernow; for a stateless people whose traditional domain is divided among several modern states, such a category is useful. The analogy of Hispanic inhabited regions is inapt. "Hispanics", however defined, do not constitute a single stateless ethnic group with a traditional range, any more than "Europeans", "Muslims", "Blondes" or "Females". The Kurds constitute, as few other ethnic groups do, a stateless population that is separated by modern borders; a similar usage is made for Catalans, where regions of traditional Catalan regions now in France are categorized under Catalonian as well as French categories. Carlossuarez46 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no defined kurdish region though. Some would draw the map to include certain cities while others do not. This category is as redundent as "Blonde inhabited region". Hispanics are stateless in the US. They do not own any of the states right? They were seperated from mexico in a sense. --Cat out 17:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong-O Kitty-Cat! Hispanics, however you define us, are no more stateless than French-Americans, German-Americans, or any other hyphenated-Americans are. If Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq would give Kurdistan its independence this category might be unnecessary because we could all look on a map and know what Kurdistan means. However, use of WP to continue the cultural genocide of the Kurds is not proper. Carlossuarez46 17:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So where is this "Hispanicistan"? Nevermind. Aren't Native americans a stateless peoples? Shouldn't we tag their "traditional regions" (all of US and parts of canada and even mexico) under a grand category? How about Aztechs or romans? Why is being stateless in any way relevant to how we categorise?

This is a cfd, a "cultural gencide" can't happen here. This isnt a matter of "culural genocide" or your political opinons (I could care less for both of them). The category is simply redudent and an article is the proper way to talk about where kurds are a majority (which itself is a seperate dispute as no demographical data exists).

--Cat out 17:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article, and Delete. See the introduction in Navajo Nation for a similar example. - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had put Milas in as a joke and it is still there after four months. Cretanforever

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:Fictional Toilets

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

The result of the debate was speedy ~~delete~~ flush Tim! 08:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not needed at all. RobJ1981 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very absurd and taking up Wikipedia page space.Chili14 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sorted by page number. When I need a fictional toilet, I need to know where to find it. Or per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... *sigh* --Cat out 02:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)--Cat out 02:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No use except to fictional characters, who AFAIK don't read Wikipedia (unless there's a fictional WP somewhere...). ♥ Her Pegship♥ 04:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAFT and delete. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Nikaya schools

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (articles moved back) --Kbdank71 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by the more suitably named category of Early Buddhist Schools, which will be more easily understood. Nikaya Buddhism is a very rarely used term, with which many people are unfamiliar. Early Buddhist Schools rings a bell immediately, and is frequently used.Greetings, Sacca 07:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to already be deleted? - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody moved all of the contents out and into Category:Early Buddhist Schools.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Much breath is spent by Buddhists arguing over which school is genuinely more antique, with the implication that this would make that school more right. It is undesireable to take sides by declaring some schools "early" to the exclusion of others. I will agree that "Nikaya Buddhism", despite having the advantage of being quite neutral, is not a very familiar term. That said, I don't think "Early Buddhist Schools" is really significantly better known; it's only recognition factor is that people know the words "early", "Buddhist", and "school" individually.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- These arguments between schools in Buddhism are not about the 'oldness' of the schools, but about whether the actual teachings of the various schools represent the whole of Buddhism. I suggest we look at the historical side, and we can clearly see that the early schools are in fact the early schools, so why try to hide this fact by giving it an unknown name that nobody is familiar with? Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism is perfectly open to the fact that the early schools are in fact the earliest schools in that these schools were there before the Mahayana and Vajrayana. They are also open to the fact that some of Mahayana teachings are in fact new and not contained in the early schools - both these facts are in fact a fundamental part of the teaching of Mahayana/Vajrayana. I would just like to keep things simple. If we can't call the early schools early any more because of some imagined sensitivities concerning the 'oldness' of the schools, we can indeed only give them strange names like Nikaya (and forget about the Agamas, I suppose ?).

- Also the list of the early schools are contained in the article Early Buddhist Schools, and it was never tried to remove this information from there, and this information being there did not generate any arguments or discussions. The reason is that this infomation is simply not disputed, it's a historical fact recognized by scholars and all buddhist schools. Also the article 'early buddhist schools' appears as a link on the 'buddhism' template; again no arguments about it, it's just not an issue, and now readers understand what is being discussed.
- Greetings, Sacca 06:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has been discussed a bit in the past on Talk:Early Buddhist Schools, mostly just with myself and Sacca as the participants. The problems with the term "early Buddhist schools" are two: first, the term "early" here is defined fairly arbitrarily to exclude the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna schools. If one were to use a different date, say 800 CE, then we would include almost all of the major Indian Mahāyāna schools, the Nyingma of Tibet, early Zen, etc., etc. The second problem with "early" is that it implies that the subjects are static, i.e. that they are inherently early and did not participate in the subsequent development of history. With regard to the extinct ancient schools of India, this may be an acceptable simplification, but it is misleading when used to describe the surviving Theravada school, particularly as this forms a key part of that school's polemic.

Incidentally, I'm not sure where you got the idea that, "Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism is perfectly open to the fact that the early schools are in fact the earliest schools in that these schools were there before the Mahayana and Vajrayana." Certainly, reading their literature, one gets the impression that they think their doctrinues came out of the mouth of the Buddha himself.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your interest in the early buddhist schools schools is very much based in a defensive attitude, of trying to prevent any possible (misguided) criticism towards Mahayana or Vajrayana. But there are many reasons for which people might want to group the early schools. Some of the early schools themselves made a list of the schools, after this it was done by the Mahayana (who excluded themselves naturally), and they called the early schools 'Hinayana' (which translates as 'the low vehicle'). Recently the term Nikaya Buddhism came into being as a name for the filosophy behind the early schools, at least that's your version of it. The early schools have also been referred to as early buddhism. The commonality between these terms is that they all refer to these early buddhist schools. At the time (350 BC to about 50 AD) they would in all probability have seen themselves as 'the buddhist schools', since their commonality is that they all try to represent Buddha's teaching, as opposed to the Brahmanical schools or the Jain schools.

Mahayana does not claim it was present as school before the 1st century AD. Thus its traditions state some scriptures were hidden or kept underground (for about at least 500 years) by some dragons, and these scriptures were then taken up to the human world around the 1st century AD, so that the Mahayana teaching could be introduced to humanity. So that's how Mahayana claims it is a later school, about 500 years after Buddha. And that also explains why Mahayana made this long list of 20 different Hinayana schools (early buddhist schools), which were already existing at the time when Mahayana came into being. Generally, the Mahayana scriptures were written into Buddha's mouth at least 500 years after the death of Buddha, or at least that's the accepted opinion amongst scholars. They see the story of the dragons as a myth, not reflecting the truth of what really happened.

Vajrayana states that the early schools were part of the 'first turning' of the teaching of Buddha, Mahayana was the second turning, and Vajrayana itself was he third turning. These turnings happened in time, so the early schools came first as the first turning, after that the Mahayana as the second turning, and the Vajrayana came third. This is basic Vajrayana, as I'm sure you are aware, and the Vajrayana tradition take pride in being the third school or turning, since they believe it's the best and most complete version of the three. You see, your defensive attiude is not even necessary.

Your last remark (starting with Incidentally...) is quite clever, but also misleading. I'm sure you're aware of the dating of the Mahayana scriptures (after 1st century CE, most are well into 2nd, 3rd and later centuries), but reading your sentence very closely I can see you avoid saying anything definite.Greetings, Sacca 08:27, 7 September 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.