Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < February 6 | February 8 > |
|---|
February 7
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People from Wolverhampton are known as Wulfrunians, not Wolverhamptoners. Steven J 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This people categorization scheme is really out-of-whack. All these categories should be Category:People from xxx instead of Category:XXXian. How many people would know that these people in this category are called Wulfrunians? (Or people from Glasgow are called Glaswegian, or that Quebecker is spelt Quebecer inside Quebec, etc) 132.205.44.134 23:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with anonymous user. How many times these categories need to be fixed before we realize that People of XXX is good enough of a naming convention? --Vizcarra 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support names are tidier this way. it ain t that hard to check up on what the name is. Mayumashu 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose this change. Category should be renamed to Category:People from Wolverhampton. Agnte 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support some form of rename. There is no such word as "Wolverhamptoner". I'd be happy to accept the rename as proposed, but would also support "People from Wolverhampton" although I consider the argument from the anon user to be irrelevant. Valiantis 14:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- support use of proper demonym Brcreel 14:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Rename per nom.--Mais oui! 14:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support rename; don't really care which way it goes. It ain't that hard to look up the correct demonym for a place. Bearcat 05:24, 12 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category, Category:Civil War regiments by state, created a few minutes ago is the same thing as, Category:Union Army regiments. With one exception - it lists the southern states as well. A separate category for southern states should be created.evrik 18:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Confederate States Army regiments already exists. Category:Civil War regiments by state should indeed be deleted, however, since it's been replaced by the correctly named Category:American Civil War regiments by state. Although this category is just a combination of the Category:American Civil War regiments by state and Category:Union Army regiments, perhaps it may be useful to keep a "by state" category in addition to the Union/Confederate regiment categories, similar to the way we have Category:History of the United States by state and Category:Histories of regions of the United States, which are two different ways to categorize the same articles. Maybe, maybe not. Don't matter to me. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 02:59, 8 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serves no useful purpose. See also comments on the category talk page. -- Longhair 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've copied my reasoning from talk - 'Mobsters' is not commonly used to describe organised criminals within Australia, and even then you can't be convicted for being a 'Mobster'. 'Gangster' is a more popular term but even this is quite subjective, and difficult to substantiate. Articles have all been put in Category:Australian criminals Agnte 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:03, 14 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Constituencies are already categorised in Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies and its subcategories, which include Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (historic). Warofdreams talk 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there are lists of historic and current constituencies. I see the need for a combined list, so eventualy there would be one index for all UK Parliamentary constituencies. --Gary J 16:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Categories are not "lists". If you want to create a combined "list" you must create a new article, perhaps called something like List of UK Parliament constituencies (current and historic).--Mais oui! 19:49, 7 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change the abbreviation to the long form. —Markles 13:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per above. Anthony 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Lieutenant Governors in the United States to conform to prevailing form found in Category:Political_office-holders_in_the_United_States. - choster 12:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not "American lieutenant governors"? Otherwise, isn't it ambiguous as to whether this is an official position within the federal government rather than a position within state governemnts? It should also be lower-cased because we're talking about the generic position. Postdlf 03:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and use current existing category. This category is redundant with Category:State lieutenant governors of the United States and was created by a new user who was not aware of it. --tomf688{talk} 02:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Category:U.S. Lieutenant Governors to Category:State lieutenant governors of the United States which matches the most common form used on the other subcats in Category:State political office-holders in the United States. I would also support changing the of to in as long as all of the other subcats are renamed. Vegaswikian 07:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Vegaswikian's suggestion. Can tomf688 please elaborate on the problem?~ —Markles
- Support the name change and keep this as a subcategory of the state lieutenant governors category. This is to capture everyone who has been a lieutenant governor, while the other category is a umbrella for categories of various states. This is meant to be an umbrella for all lieutenant governors, including those who do not have state categories for them. Prez2016 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If they don't have a state category, then you should add one. If they have a template, adding a category to the template will add them to the state category at the next edit. The articles will need to be edited to correctly sort the people, easy to spot and fix. Vegaswikian 07:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Vegaswikian's solution. Prez2016's suggestion simply insists on redundant categories being maintained—one for subcategories, the other as a dumping ground for the unsorted, and neither named in a way that would make you understand their questionable functions. Postdlf 18:26, 14 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
misspelling Nikai 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom (it's a misspelling of Category:Millennium Prize Problems which I created to solve the problem...) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment shouldn't the correctly spelled article also have "problems" in lower case? - TexasAndroid 16:19, 7 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a 'Fixed shooters' category, which does the same thing.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per argument given in nomination immediately below Mayumashu 12:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that there is a Category:Canadian city councillors, I could favour either of two approaches: either delete this and refile Howard Epstein there, or keep this and reclassify all Canadian municipal politicians into provincial subgroupings. Bearcat 23:24, 14 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. topic is too irrelevant a distinction to be encyclopedic. also all articles that populate it appear in more encyclopedically sound categories for Nova Scotia politicians. (i erroneously created it last year) Mayumashu 12:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete seems to minor to rank as a category since this is for local elections in Nova Scotia.Prez2016 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go with the delete here, too; it's of relatively minor importance and both of the people filed here are already more notable for other reasons anyway. Bearcat 23:20, 14 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in this category. There are maybe two articles on Wikipedia that could go in this category. Five if you really push it and create some new ones. There's just no need. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 09:36, 7 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.
- 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 to Category:National Forests of the United States --Kbdank71 14:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lose the appreviation and change to the of fooian form. Vegaswikian 04:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator. Piccadilly 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:National Forests of the United States, per the National Park System's nomenclature. - EurekaLott 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The US Forest Service maintains National Forests, not the NPS. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support this alternative name. Vegaswikian 08:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Although the designation is capitalized in a protected areas title, in a line of text it should be lower case. — Eoghanacht talk 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. "National Forest" is a specific title and designation, not a generic category. Should be Category:National Forests of the United States. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 10 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. National Historic Sites to Category:National historic sites of the United States
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to Category:National Historic Sites of the United States --Kbdank71 14:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lose the appreviation and change to the of fooian form. Vegaswikian 04:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator. Piccadilly 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:National Historic Sites of the United States. - EurekaLott 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support this form. Vegaswikian 08:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Although the designation is capitalized in a protected areas title, in a line of text it should be lower case. — Eoghanacht talk 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. "National Historic Site" is a specific title, not a generic category. Should be Category:National Historic Sites of the United States, as in this page. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 10 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. National Historical Parks to Category:National historical parks of the United States
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to Category:National Historical Parks of the United States --Kbdank71 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lose the appreviation and change to the of fooian form. Vegaswikian 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator. Piccadilly 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:National Historical Parks of the United States - EurekaLott 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support this alternative name. Vegaswikian 08:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Although the designation is capitalized in a protected areas title, in a line of text it should be lower case. — Eoghanacht talk 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. "National Historical Park" is a specific title, not a generic category. Should be Category:National Historical Parks of the United States, as in this page. --Calton | Talk 02:05, 10 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Pearl Buck better known by Chinese name than just "Pearl Buck"? Delete. --Puzzlet Chung 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be so quick to delete things! This category refers to those non-Chinese known in China by their Chinese names, and the part in China is logically assumed without saying. There is a long list of such people. Do some investigation before you take actions. Or suggest a better name for the category. Keep. --Roland 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- How is it logically assumed? There's nothing in the category's name which suggests that at all. I'd assumed it was for people like NZ journalist Tsehai Tiffin (who is not Chinese, or of Chinese descent). Grutness...wha? 08:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know much about Tsehai Tiffin which is not a Chinese name, but for another example, the late Harvard professor John K. Fairbank had the Chinese name 費正清 which is an authentic Chinese name and is used in the Chinese context. Not all non-Chinese people have such names. --Roland 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Mmm. sorry, you're right. I'd assumed Tse-hai was Chinese... Tsehai seems to be Ethiopian or possibly something like Aramaic. But I digress. So you mean people like Rewi Alley, then (although I note that the article on him doesn't mention his Chinese name...I'll have to look it up somewhere). Grutness...wha? 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The part "Tsehai" could have been Chinese, but "Tiffin" is not. So the whole name is not Chinese. Rewi Alley is well-known in China, but he did NOT have a Chinese name. But George Hatem, Erwin Engst and Joan Hinton did have authentic Chinese names, and they were officially used. If you go to these articles now, you can see their Chinese names in Chinese characters. And these are a unique category of people. --Roland 02:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that comes back to original point. There is nothing in the name of the category which indicates that that was whart was meant. Under the current name, had Tsehai been a Chinese name, then - given that she is of European ancestry - she could easily have been in the category. Which clearly indicates that the name the category has is not a clear indication of its intention. (I was sure Rewi Alley was also given a Chinese name... ah well, you learn something new every day.) Grutness...wha? 04:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why don't you just tell me Rewi Alley's Chinese name? What is it? Again, a Chinese name is not a transliteration of an original non-Chinese name. It looks you have no idea what a Chinese name is like. --Roland 08:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- As I suggested above, I can't remember it. It was mentioned in a biography of him I read quite a few years ago. Of course I know what a Chinese name is like - don't be silly. It is more like an honorific title in many respects, and perhaps "Honorific Chinese names..." might be a better way of wording this category's title. Hatem was "Ma Hai-de" IIRC, and Kathleen hall is another who should be on the list (He Ming-qing, again IIRC). Unfortunately, the NZ national biographic website seems to be down at the moment, otherwise I'd have checked there. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it logically assumed? There's nothing in the category's name which suggests that at all. I'd assumed it was for people like NZ journalist Tsehai Tiffin (who is not Chinese, or of Chinese descent). Grutness...wha? 08:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you to make the list of such people, not category. --Puzzlet Chung 11:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate why a list is okay but not a category? Most of these people are deeply associated with China, the Chinese language, history, politics, and so on, and the category serves those people with an interest in Sinology or other China-related subjects. Keep --Roland 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why a list would be much better than a category: it would allow us to reference all the entries, to maintain the list (since a list, unlike a category, allows us to make sure that no new entries have been added and no old ones removed improperly, by having an edit history for the entries), and to include important details on the subject, the most important and obvious one being: what is the person's name in Chinese? (both the characters and the pronunciation, and the source of the name if there is one). This is a valid, significant encyclopedic topic, and a great way to learn more about a Chinese culture tidbit and to slightly lessen Wikipedia's cultural bias, but a category can't provide a fraction of the information that a list can. At least consider it. -Silence 02:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate why a list is okay but not a category? Most of these people are deeply associated with China, the Chinese language, history, politics, and so on, and the category serves those people with an interest in Sinology or other China-related subjects. Keep --Roland 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you to make the list of such people, not category. --Puzzlet Chung 11:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is really trivia, and not a suitable subject for a category. JW 23:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not trivial. They have profound connections with the Chinese culture, language, and the personal experiences of these people. Keep --Roland 03:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not bold your opposition to comments, as it may confuse an editor counting into thinking that you're opposing this CfD (which you are, but by repeating your bold you're making it seem like more than one vote). Also, it's nonstandard practice to explicitly say "oppose" in response to a single user's opinion (rather than in response to a formal proposition), though I don't oppose your doing so. :) -Silence 02:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Silence, for your suggestion. My idea is that when a reader is reading one of the entries in the category, he/she can get connected with other entries in the same category. Does a list do that too? --Roland 04:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, no; that is one of the main disadvantages of a list vs. a category. In fact, that's the reason why I commonly advocate that we use both lists and categories, at the same time, for the same topic: both have plent yof good aspects that the other doesn't, and have weaknesses which the other covers. Using both at once gets the best of both worlds. However, if we are only to use one or the other (either a category or a list), as is usually the case, I'd definitely have to go with a list in this case. It's much more valuable to give our readers as much information as possible than to advertise the article far and wide even though it really isn't of central importance in the lives of any of the people involved. -Silence 05:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not trivial. They have profound connections with the Chinese culture, language, and the personal experiences of these people. Keep --Roland 03:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong listify, or in lieu of that, keep. Potentially fascinating topic, but only a list can do it justice. Or even better, a list with a table on it! Something like List of people with a non-Chinese name who are known in China by a Chinese name, or just List of non-Chinese known by Chinese names in China (though the latter, while shorter, is a bit more repetitive with the "Chinese" beats, and they could also confuse people into thinking that it applies to people who were born with Chinese names, rather than being given one after-the-fact). -Silence 02:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with "Listify" although I don't know if that's a real option. There are several of these where their Chinese name came because they spent much of their life in China and, to a degree, adopted Chinese culture. Giuseppe Castiglione's Chinese name is well-known enough I think it gets a fair amount of hits. It was also his painting name for many years. (Although possibly this can be in some kind of "list of pseudonyms" or something).--T. Anthony 07:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify per Silence. Add "See also" to articles where deserved as mentioned above. Pavel Vozenilek 00:03, 14 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.
- 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 is delete --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense; looks like sandbox testing. Delete JonHarder 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Piccadilly 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete... nonsense as stated above. Anthony 19:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pavel Vozenilek 21:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, useless in current state, overly broad category name as well. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete please. This is covered by its parent Category:Events. -- Reinyday, 01:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I happened to go to this category hoping it will have a sub-category called "Category:Past events" or "Category:Historical events" or something. I don't find such a category existing. Jay 18:11, 12 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.
- 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 04:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This attempt to divide Category:Transgender by assigned sex at birth (which isn't necessarily the implication of the name) is problematic, questionably useful and possibly offensive. It seems less than useful to group drag queen (which refers mostly to people who identify as male) with kathoey and two-spirit (who aren't even necessarily 'male-bodied'). Even so, to describe (mtf) people who have hormones or sex reassignment surgery, as is the case with some of the articles in the category, as 'male-bodied' is not exactly accurate, and quite likely offensive. And the capitalization is wrong. Delete. Mairi 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Alynna 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not conversant with the topic, however: I think it is useful to distinguish mtf from ftm; Thus the solution here might be to rename rather than delete. The argument about it being offensive is not applicable to this work. As for the inclusion of two-spirit . . . two spirit could be either, and thus probably belongs in both mtf and ftm categories. I will refrain from voting because I am simply not familiar with naming conventions in this field. Haiduc 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a seriously confusing category title. Without the explanation, you would have no idea whether it meant "male-bodied at birth" or "currently male-bodied." Also, it would make a lot more sense to categorize transgendered people by gender identity. Also, the articles currently in this category ought to be sent back to Category:Transgender people and behavior, whether or not the category is kept. Also, if we want to make a Category:Male to female transsexuals and Category:Female to male transsexuals, they should be subcategories of Category:Transgender and transsexual people. I don't know how this would work as that category is currently split by profession. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 05:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dave 05:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:02, 7 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.
- 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. —akghetto talk 04:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
misspelling. Arniep 22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi - I was not sure either but I checked with BBC website for Just a Minute and they prefer two Ls. best wishes Tony Corsini 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Panellist does seems to be the slightly more common spelling in the UK, but internationally there are 12,600,000 hits for Panelists but only 130,000 hits for Panellists on Google. Arniep 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. British dictionaries, and Google within .uk domains, all prefer panellist (Google vote splits 40k/16k). This is a straightforward case of UK spelling for UK topics. —Blotwell 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Agree with Blotwell. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 05:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose double-l is en-gb spelling. --TimPope 07:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose. British show => British spelling. As far as I know there has never been a list of panes on "Just a minute" (though knowing that show, it is possible). Grutness...wha? 08:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment ;) Arniep 14:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- and repetition of "show" ;)) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment ;) Arniep 14:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Piccadilly 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: UK show ⇒ en-gb spelling (just to make sure we have it nailed down). —Phil | Talk 16:38, 7 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.