Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 18

< February 17	February 19 >

February 18

Category:Notable places in Lithuania

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. —akghetto ^talk 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, if a place in Lithuania is on Wikipedia, it has to be notable to begin with, or would be deleted as NN. There is a sense that the places on this article are somehow especially significant, perhaps culturally more than anything else, but we do have e.g. Category:World Heritage Sites in Lithuania for that. Especially old buildings could be put into e.g. a Category:Medieval buildings and structures in Lithuania if that helped. I don't know whether Category:Culturally significant places in Lithuania or Category:Historically important places in Lithuania would be any better than the category as it stands.TheGrappler 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Golfcam 21:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This information belongs to a list where details can be given and maintenance is easier or into specialised categories. Pavel Vozenilek 22:51, 18 February 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:Materials scientists to Category:Materials scientists and engineers

Category:Materials engineers to Category:Materials scientists and engineers

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 to Category:Materials scientists and engineers. —akghetto ^talk 17:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious distinction between the two (e.g. which one should Category:Polymer personalities belong to?), and both seem to deserve being subcategories of the three categories material science, engineers and scientists. Rather than picking one name over the other it seems to make sense to combine the two. TheGrappler 14:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the materials scientists cat and either missed the materials engineers cat or it was created after. Either way, no problem with Rename. --Etacar11 15:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since creator agrees perhaps this could be taken as decided. Pavel Vozenilek 20:30, 20 February 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:Italian engineers by field

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. —akghetto ^talk 00:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary. It is the only subcategory of Category:Italian engineers while containing only one subcategory itself, a mildly bizarre and rather unnecessary arrangement, and apparently unique among the "Fooian engineers" categories. TheGrappler 14:04, 18 February 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.

Aeronautical engineers

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 adopted all changes as proposed. —akghetto ^talk 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More established and heavily populated than the equivalent Category:Aerospace engineers. However, that category links better with the rest of the categorisation, including Category:Aerospace engineering and the accompanying main article Aerospace engineering, to which Aeronautical engineering is a redirect. I suggest: Merge Category:Aeronautical engineers to Category:Aerospace engineers
As for its subcats,:
Delete Category:Aeronautical engineers by nationality (as redundant; unlikely to be any other subcategorisation of the category)
Rename Category:British aeronautical engineers to Category:British aerospace engineers
Rename Category:Italian aeronautical engineers to Category:Italian aerospace engineers
Rename Category:German aeronautical engineers to Category:German aerospace engineers
Rename Category:Russian aircraft designers to Category:Russian aerospace engineers
TheGrappler 14:01, 18 February 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:Beatles references

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. —akghetto ^talk 17:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No real connection between members, Things like Soviet Union certainly do not gain by being in the catagory. Perhaps a list instead. SimonLyall 09:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the idea was OK, but its realization was a bit tricky. While Prudence Farrow or Yoko Ono had their place there, I admit that, for instance, USSR, Walter Raleigh or the Eiffel Tower (see I Am the Walrus) are more debatable. And what about Love or Revolution? Frankly, I have no idea how we could fix it up

Mrbluesky 13:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being referred to in a Beatles song is not important for these things, apart from the ones with enough connection with The Beatles to go in the main Beatles category. ReeseM 14:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Penny Lane, Brian Epstein etc can go in The Beatles category, and are probably already in there. JW 14:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absurd overcategorisation. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete pretty absurd, really. It might make a viable list, which could be divided into items/people/places/concepts(?) referenced in songs, but as is it's pointless. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 19 February 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:Material objects

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. —akghetto ^talk 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered by Category:Matter. Brian Jason Drake 09:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what was originally in the category but the name is very vague. Pavel Vozenilek 22:53, 18 February 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:U.S. Assistant Attorneys General to Category:United States Assistant Attorneys General

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 renamed to Category:Assistant Attorneys General of the United States. —akghetto ^talk 00:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian 01:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after comment. Vegaswikian 08:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would Category:Assistant Attorneys General of the United States be better?TheGrappler 04:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This matches the other AG subcats Category:United States Attorneys General and Category:United States Attorneys offices. Vegaswikian 08:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore it also matches the main article. I just wondered since it looks like Category:U.S. Surgeons General is heading for Category:Surgeons General of the United States in the vote below! TheGrappler 08:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - While we're at it, there's a missing apostrophe in [:Category:United States Attorneys Office]]! I will put that up to speedy :) TheGrappler 14:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do they all need the apostrophe? Vegaswikian 23:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nope, but in the latter case we are talking about the offices of the United States Attorneys, therefore it's United States Attorneys' offices. TheGrappler 01:59, 19 February 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:Top 10 to Category:Category bar

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 oppose move. —akghetto ^talk 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Top 10" is not informative (somebody has already mentioned this on the talk page) and is inaccurate anyway, as there are now 11 categories on the category bar. Brian Jason Drake 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Category:Category bar is even less informative, unless you happen to know what a "category bar" is (most readers don't). If we have to rename, wouldn't renaming to something like Category:Top categories be much better? ··gracefool |☺ 13:17, 21 February 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.

Sportspeople

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 all. —akghetto ^talk 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT athletes --> Category:LGBT sportspeople
Category:Bisexual athletes --> Category:Bisexual sportspeople
Category:Gay athletes --> Category:Gay sportspeople
Category:Lesbian athletes --> Category:Lesbian sportspeople
Category:Transgender and transsexual athletes --> Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople
Rename all - "Athlete" is an American word for sportsman. In the rest of the world word "athlete" means athletics (track and field in American English) athlete. So this is very confusing since these categories contain many sportspeople from different sport disciplines. "Athletes" categories are another sign of americanization of Wikipedia. - Darwinek 08:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. By the way, they should also feed into Category:Sportspeople rather than Category:Athletes.--Mike Selinker 08:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nom. ReeseM 14:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Choalbaton 13:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Didn't we just go through this with the LGBT criminals/murders/serial killers bit? If we're going to enforce the policy of deleting categories that have no scientific connection to each other (i.e., there's nothing connecting homosexuality with propensity to kill, just as there is no way of connecting homosexuality with athletic ability), then we need to be uniform. Either keep them all or delete them all, but let's not be arbitrary with this. Anthony Hit me up... 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per Anthony Carina22 18:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nomination. As for note about the "unscientific" aspect of this category, (completely aside from the "LGBT criminals" discussion, which I have no knowledge of) ... I found this category while reading about figure skaters I watched in my childhood. I remembered the 1990s era controversy over gay skaters "coming out", such as Rudi Galindo speaking frankly about his HIV+ status. I used the category as a "tickler" for my memory, not because I was seeking a scientific connection between homosexuality and athleticism. Perhaps some users may be using this list to prove a scientific hypothesis, but I suggest that most might simply be curious - as someone might be curious about prominent women in science, prominent Catholic politicians, actors who are vegetarians, etc. Noirdame 05:07, 23 February 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.

Knut Hamsun

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. —akghetto ^talk 17:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Category:Knut Hamsun contains one article and a subcat, Category:Knut Hamsun novels, which itself contains one article. Could easily be covered by Category:Norwegian novelists and Category:Norwegian novels. Deborah-jl _Talk 07:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. In the future number of articles about Hamsun can grow up and one category would be useful. Currently it only clutters the space. It is not good to create categries in advance. Pavel Vozenilek 22:56, 18 February 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.

Construction companies

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 all. Syrthiss 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Construction companies into Category:Construction and civil engineering companies Move Category:Construction companies of South Korea to Category:Construction and civil engineering companies of South Korea; Category:Construction companies of Germany to Category:Construction and civil engineering companies of Germany

Category:Construction companies was recently created by an apparent vandal (Mirmo!, probably the same as 211.245.243.189) in ignorance of Category:Construction and civil engineering companies which has been here for over a year and has the advantage of a more unambiguous name. Subcats should be moved for consistency. --TheGrappler 07:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/rename as per nom. ReeseM 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Calsicol 01:50, 20 February 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.

Companies traded on Foo Stock Exchange to Companies listed on Foo Stock Exchange

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 all. — Feb. 24, '06 [13:26] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Merge Category:Companies traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange->Category:Companies listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange

'Move

Back again, the other way round this time! Rationale put better below, but essentially shares are traded, companies only listed. These renamings would make everything consistent. --TheGrappler 06:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - logic seems reasonable. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. ReeseM 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -choster 03:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge per nom. Mark Hurd 17:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge per nom. Carina22 18:20, 21 February 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.

Filipino ethnicities

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 all. —akghetto ^talk 01:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by an anon out of process, and subsequently tagged afd by someone else; I'm just bringing them here for resolution since they don't look like speedies. —Cryptic (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the hyphen is ungrammatical Mayumashu 06:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. The hyphen is standard contemporary English so if the grammar guides say it is wrong, they need to be updated. Honbicot 18:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the far more complete Category:Canadian people by ethnicity, Category:Mexican people by ethnic origin, and Category:American people by ethnicity indicate a preference for the non-hyphenated orthography. - choster 15:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree that the hyphen is ungrammatical, but the "old" names are utterly wrong Mayumashu 02:12, 22 February 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.