Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
July 2
[edit]- 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 (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is misspelled. I already moved everything to the correct spelling. Ace of Sevens 23:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 05:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – this is an American/British Engish thing (Wiktionary). ×Meegs 06:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Meegs, Apple Computer is an American firm, American spelling should be used. siafu 20:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you have things backwards: cancelled is the only British spelling, while in American English, canceled is more common. I have no preference. ×Meegs 22:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sp --Polkapunk 20:33, 6 July 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 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 (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created for a bunch of crufty articles on individual episodes of Scooby-Doo, Where are You!, which is akin to writing seperate articles on every Big Mac sandwich ever made. All articles merged to List of Scooby-Doo, Where are You! episodes, making category unneccessary. --FuriousFreddy 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's the distinction between this and, say, the various Doctor Who episode categories? I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I figure there might as well be a standard one way or the other. Doogie2K (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, it's a number-of-articles thing. The Doctor Who categories are for many dozens of well-researched articles. This category would only have one entry (the rest of the shows having episode guides on their article pages), and so can be deleted. But if a user goes nuts and writes an in-depth article summary for every one of those meddling kids' adventures, a category will seem more appropriate.--Mike Selinker 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mike Selinker, not enough articles. siafu 20:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Empty. Golfcam 02:58, 6 July 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 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 merge. the wub "?!" 22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate category, differing only in capitalization of name. --Paul A 17:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy merge? (Incidentally, the description "musical theatre/er" seems a hybrid of "musical" and "music theatre/er", which I believe are distinct genres...?) David Kernow 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Musical theatre" appears to be an established usage. (Perhaps because referring to "Musical characters" or "Musical actors" would be ambiguous as to whether the characters/actors are musical or are in a musical.) --Paul A 05:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I suppose "musical" (as in those shows on Broadway etc) is shorthand for "musical theatre work", "theatrical work based on music", etc. For the above, I guess my experience leads me to prefer Category:Characters in musicals but I understand the current format. Meanwhile, "musical group" does sound to me more like "a group that is musical" than "a group that plays music", for which my experience is the description "music group". But, so long as it's all clear... Thanks for your input, David 18:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Musical theatre" appears to be an established usage. (Perhaps because referring to "Musical characters" or "Musical actors" would be ambiguous as to whether the characters/actors are musical or are in a musical.) --Paul A 05:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Calsicol 23:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. No argument. siafu 20:54, 5 July 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 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 --William Allen Simpson 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I previously listed this category, but forgot to tag the article, so let's try again: Apparently for TV shows that have had some sort of pop-culture impact, but that is so nebulous and subjective that a category seems unworkable. —tregoweth (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Highly unspecific. --FuriousFreddy 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Osomec 21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, vague and POV. --Musicpvm 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename: to Category:Television in popular culture and restrict the articles to those dealing with television's impact on popular culture, or a specific article on a television show's impact on popular culture. Articles on just the television show should not go into this category unless there is a section that deals heavily with this issue. (Copied from the last CfD.) -Lady Aleena @ 07:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, rename to Category:Television in popular culture per Lady Aleena – but this too seems very general and I wonder how viable the category might be... Regards, David Kernow 18:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't see a way for this to be made NPOV as it is. siafu 20:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Golfcam 03:00, 6 July 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 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 --William Allen Simpson 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging all articles that are about items that are plot points in the book Angels and Demons (articles like antimatter, CERN, Holy See, Vatican City). This is specific enough to be clutter in most of the articles tagged (the book is already mentioned in the "X in fiction" sections where appropriate). --Christopher Thomas 11:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. This is a truly silly use of categories. If a similar approach were taken to all films and novels, the result would be bedlam. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Keenan Pepper 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mwanner. If people want to read about things that are mentioned in Angels and Demons, they should click on the wikilinks in the article on the book. That's how browsing on Wikipedia works, not by creating a category for "has something to do with X." -- SCZenz 18:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Neutral. My main objection is now addressed. -- SCZenz 20:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Are you sure it's been addressed? The category is still inappropriate for Ecstasy of St Theresa and Symbology. --Christopher Thomas 20:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One or two articles can be fixed. I also noted, when I went through and removed inappropriate articles from Category:Da Vinci code, that the term Symbology appears to be at least partially made-up by Dan Brown, so it's not clear that one's inappropriate. But anyway, the point is that if the category is no longer intended to contain real world things mentioned in the book, then my issue is addressed. -- SCZenz 09:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure it's been addressed? The category is still inappropriate for Ecstasy of St Theresa and Symbology. --Christopher Thomas 20:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom even though it's such a good book. --Musicpvm 21:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. The two members that belong, the book and movie, do not need a cat. ×Meegs 06:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep (create articles for characters just like The Da Vinci Code) --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are articles for four characters in addition to the film and book. Seems enough for me.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The original creator of the category (Empty2005 (talk • contribs)) is presently very busy creating stub articles for every character in the book. This doesn't seem to me to justify the existence of the category; instead, it looks like an attempt to pad out the category with material that would be better off either in the Angels and Demons article, or in a single article along the lines of Characters from Angels and Demons. --Christopher Thomas 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Incase you haven't noticed I removed all irrelivant articles, the article will be needed in the future as did the Da Vinci Code category. Empty2005 03:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my previous comments, I don't see why you wouldn't just list all characters' biographies in one article (or a subsection of the main article). As it stands, you have a moderate number of very small stubs. I also don't see how you can say that it "will be needed in the future" until that future time occurs. The book was popular enough that I don't think the movie release will massively increase the amount of material present (though depending on how much the movie changes things, it might deserve its own article instead of a "movie" subsection in Angels and Demons). My main concern is that right _now_, neither the category nor the character stubs seems to serve a purpose. --Christopher Thomas 04:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems that a relevant issue is whether these articles merit being seperate in the first place. Perhaps some discussion of it at Talk:Angels and Demons would be more productive. If the character articles are merged back into the main article (which is where, IMO, they belong, so long as they are as short as they currently are), then the cat should be deleted. Otherwise, if the articles are expanded, this cat would make sense. siafu 21:00, 5 July 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 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is empty and only ever contained one article (Addie Singer), which has been merged and redirected per WP:FICT. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 21:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
as vague, probably inherently POV.per nom. David Kernow 03:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC), updated 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: Just to clear things up, the category was aimed at characters from the show Unfabulous, not at characters considered unfabulous. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case, I'd suggest Category:Characters from Unfabulous – but it seems the category is unnecessary per the nom. Thanks for the clarification, David 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to clear things up, the category was aimed at characters from the show Unfabulous, not at characters considered unfabulous. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 21:00, 5 July 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.
People by South African city
[edit]- 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 all; delete Natives of… --RobertG ♬ talk 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Capetonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:People from Cape Town
- Category:Durbanites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:People from Durban
- Category:Maritzburgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:People from Pietermaritzburg
- Category:Pretorians (Gauteng) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:People from Pretoria
- Rename recent creations of Mayumashu (talk · contribs) to conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Residence. Note that "Capetonians" is G4 recreation of deleted "Cape Towners", a debate that Mayumashu lost in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 29.
- Comment -- Category:Jo'burgers to Category:People from Johannesburg was already accomplished Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 30 --William Allen Simpson 07:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. --Musicpvm 08:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. Osomec 21:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. Calsicol 23:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. IMO, demonyms are to be avoided in general as their meanings are not obvious to many. siafu 21:03, 5 July 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.
People by Polish city
[edit]- 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 both. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Natives of Gdańsk to Category:People from Gdańsk
- Category:Natives of Warsaw to Category:People from Warsaw
- Rename to match others in Category:People by Polish city, according to "People from ..." policy.
- Rename both per nom. David Kernow 03:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both per nom. --Mereda 14:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both. Calsicol 23:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 21:03, 5 July 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 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. Conscious 08:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "-Based" is unnecessary. We can put a disclaimer at the top of the page that mentions that these organizations may have been founded by Latinos, but that they are not racially exclusive, which was the reason the category was originally named that way.--Rockero 05:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Calsicol 23:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. No argument. siafu 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename I agree with Rockero 's reasons Amistoso 06:28, 11 July 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.
Occupations in Western Australia
[edit]- 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 alternative rename. Conscious 08:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Occupation of to Occupation from per residence convention.--Peta 05:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
*Category:Criminals of Western Australia
*Category:Actors of Western Australia
*Category:Musicians of Western Australia
*Category:Sportspeople of Western Australia -> Category:Sports people from Western Australia[reply]
- Category:Indigenous people of Western Australia -> Indigenous Australians from Western Australia
- Alternate rename -- I think you have the wrong convention, Occupation is the one just above Residence, and "Indigenous people" is not an Occupation or a Residence. Shouldn't that be:
- Category:Criminals of Western Australia to Category:Western Australian criminals
- Category:Actors of Western Australia to Category:Western Australian actors
- Category:Musicians of Western Australia to Category:Western Australian musicians
- Category:Sportspeople of Western Australia to Category:Western Australian sportspeople
- Category:Indigenous people of Western Australia to Indigenous people from Western Australia
- You're right, this is the scheme I should have proposed, except the indigenous category - where exactly what kind of indigenous person we are talking about should be spelled out for the sake of clarity--Peta 01:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. "Sports people" or "Sportspeople"? Snottygobble 02:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sportspeople" seems fine... then again, so does "sportscar"... Regards, David Kernow 02:29, 5 July 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.
Australian politicians by residence
[edit]- 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. Conscious 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the following to match the other Australian categories which take the form of 'state politicians, see Category:Tasmanian politicians ect.--Peta 05:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Politicians from Western Australia
- Category:Politicians of South Australia
- Category:Politicians of Queensland
- Category:Politicians of the Australian Capital Territory
- This mess desperately needs to be sorted out, and I support Peta's proposal
, except for one issue. I don't understand any of these categories to contain politicians by residence. I understand them to contain politicians by origin. In particular, I use Category:Politicians from Western Australia for politicians born in Western Australia irrespective of the political system in which they are involved. And I use Category:Political office-holders in Western Australia for politicians in Western Australia's political system irrespective of where they were born. I don't see the need for a third categorisation that captures politicians by where they currently reside, and I would oppose replacing the origin semantics with a residence semantics, because I think the origin semantics is far more interesting and useful, and it fits more neatly within its supercategories, e.g. Category:People from Western Australia. Snottygobble 11:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Snottygobble (I think, if I have interpreted correctly) - too many cats - delete any that only refer to place of residence and/or merge with where they hold office and/or where they come from as in People of ... . We do need categories like Category:Political office-holders in Western Australia or whatever to cover the place for where the individual holds/held office. We don't need to know where they live at any given moment; we do need to know they are people of a place. For example, John Howard is categorised as "People of Sydney" among many others: Australian Anglicans | Current national leaders | Liberal Party of Australia politicians | Living people | Members of the Australian House of Representatives | Members of the Cabinet of Australia | New South Wales Federal politicians | People of Sydney | Prime Ministers of Australia | Treasurers of Australia | Government ministers of Australia. He doesn't live in Canberra :-) We could have a special cat for people not living in Canberra who others think should (joke). We don't really need to know he lives in Sydney most of the time through a category - if it is important, the fact can be included in the article.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reaon a person from WA could not be in Category:Western Australian politicians, Category:New South Wales politicans and Category:Governors of New South Wales, the above listed categories create a confusing stiuation and are not in keeping with the naming convention applies to other states and territories.--Peta 01:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A politician can have served in more than one jurisdiction, especially say Federal and State (perhaps even more than one state but I can't think of any examples other than governors of whom there were a few. Any given politician can also be from more than one place, eg born somewhere, lived somewhere else, educated even elsewhere. I assume Hawke would not be categorised under Politicians of South Australia even though he was born there. The cat type is really only useful for organising sub cats. However, these sub cats could be organised say in the case of SA under Members of the Australian House of Representatives by Division, ''Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, ... There is already a cat such as New South Wales Federal politicians which might help to decipher the place issue where it is not immediately apparent in the case of Federal politicians. I don't disagree with the renaming proposal but I don't think these cats should be kept - not a useful aggregation, if they are kept, the criteria for inclusion is probably not place of residence. Apologies if my argument inadequately coherent - happy to try to clarify further.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Noone is proposing deletion, just a coherent naming strategy :) We should sort out what does where [Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics here]--Peta 02:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have withdrawn my objection above. I had assumed "by residence" to mean "by current residence", whereas (if I understand Peta correctly) it actually means "by notable (current or past) residence". Under this semantics, a politician belongs in Category:Western Australian politicians if he or she has lived in Western Australia and the fact that they have lived in Western Australia is notable. e.g. John Curtin belongs in the category because his time in Western Australia was important to his political development and career; but Herbert Hoover (who spent a year prospecting for gold in Western Australia) does not belong because his period of residence in Western Australia is not particularly notable (and in fact isn't even mentioned in his article). This is reasonably consistent with my current understanding of Category:Politicians from Western Australia, so this proposal is merely a matter of renaming to the standard. I now support the proposal. Snottygobble 02:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Noone is proposing deletion, just a coherent naming strategy :) We should sort out what does where [Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics here]--Peta 02:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A politician can have served in more than one jurisdiction, especially say Federal and State (perhaps even more than one state but I can't think of any examples other than governors of whom there were a few. Any given politician can also be from more than one place, eg born somewhere, lived somewhere else, educated even elsewhere. I assume Hawke would not be categorised under Politicians of South Australia even though he was born there. The cat type is really only useful for organising sub cats. However, these sub cats could be organised say in the case of SA under Members of the Australian House of Representatives by Division, ''Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, ... There is already a cat such as New South Wales Federal politicians which might help to decipher the place issue where it is not immediately apparent in the case of Federal politicians. I don't disagree with the renaming proposal but I don't think these cats should be kept - not a useful aggregation, if they are kept, the criteria for inclusion is probably not place of residence. Apologies if my argument inadequately coherent - happy to try to clarify further.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reaon a person from WA could not be in Category:Western Australian politicians, Category:New South Wales politicans and Category:Governors of New South Wales, the above listed categories create a confusing stiuation and are not in keeping with the naming convention applies to other states and territories.--Peta 01:20, 3 July 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 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 --William Allen Simpson 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Largely redundant with Category:Politicians of Queensland, criteria for inclusion are unclear and lend themselves to POV inclusions.--Peta 05:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. POV, redundant. Kill it off. Snottygobble 11:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support deletion as per Peta and Snottygobble--A Y Arktos\talk 00:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also features faulty capitalization. David Kernow 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 21:05, 5 July 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 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 (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A category formerly filled with ultra-small stubs, emptied when they were merged into List of Mega Man ZX characters. Seeing as these characters appear only in one unreleased game, this cat is unlikely to be needed any time soon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy. Empty category. siafu 21:06, 5 July 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.
Australian people by residence
[edit]- 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 all. the wub "?!" 22:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:People of Fremantle
- Category:People of Perth -> Category:People from Perth, Western Australia (multiple Perths)
- Category:People of Ballarat
- Category:People of Geelong
- Category:People of Melbourne
- Category:People of Hobart
- Category:People of Brisbane
- Category:People of Darwin
- Category:People of Wagga Wagga
- Category:People of Sydney
- Category:People of Newcastle, New South Wales
- Category:People of Broken Hill
- Rename from People of to People from per convention.--Peta 05:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --William Allen Simpson 06:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Snottygobble 02:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. David Kernow 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. No argument. siafu 21:06, 5 July 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 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 --William Allen Simpson 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphenation. --Peta 06:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This hyphenation thing confuses me. Some people tell me it's necessary; others say it's unncessary. The parent cat Category:Italian people by ethnic or national origin is a 50/50 mix of hyphenated and non-hyphenated subcats as are the other 50 subcategories in Category:People by ethnic or national origin. All of these categories should be consistent, so we need to come to a consensus. I personally think the hyphen is unnecessary. --Musicpvm 08:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong delete This quest to find someone to fill every possible ethnic combination category is ridiculous. This category contains one article, which is about an Australian. Osomec 21:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Osomec Calsicol 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Osomec. An Australian, a Russian who lived in Italy, and only one person of mixed Russian and Italian descent. siafu 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Osomec Golfcam 02:59, 6 July 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 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 (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategorize them to city and municipalities makes this cat more useful. Matt86hk talk 01:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- merge up to Category:Montenegrin people -- name contrary to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) -- for those places with sufficient number of people, create new categories Category:People from ... --William Allen Simpson 02:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted, as it was forgotten or overlooked on the original day by closer Conscious (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) --William Allen Simpson 03:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Empty, as there was exactly one place where there were enough people to bother making the Category:People from Podgorica. Maybe someday there will be more, but until then it would be pointless to create a parent to hold them. --William Allen Simpson 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Montenegro has a population of about 600,000 and this is empty. Category:Montenegrin people is enough. Osomec 21:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No argument. siafu 21:09, 5 July 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 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 Merge to Category:Indian Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --William Allen Simpson 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created by User --Spasage on 19 May 2006.However there already existed Category:Indian Muslims created on 16 May 2006. "Indian Muslims" is widely used term . A search for "Indian Muslims" gets 294,000 hits on google [1] , whereas the similar search for "Muslim Indians" get only 18,000 hits [2] . Unlike Muslims in say Germany and Britain Muslims of India are not immigrants so "Indian Muslims' category is appropriate . Therefore the Category:Muslim Indians should be deleted.Shyamsunder 15:20, 02 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete redundant cat per nom. --Musicpvm 08:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all check Category:Muslims by nationality, you will see the convention. We are using Muslim followed by name of country, e.g. Category:Muslim Americans, Category:Muslim Germans etc. So, to make sure that Category for Muslims in India follows the same convention I change it to Category:Muslim Indians. I don’t see any problem in it. It is convention we are using for this category. Category Category:Indian Muslims was created some time back, it was not correct name, I am just changing it. Instead we should be deleting Category:Indian Muslims and moving entries to Category:Muslim Indians.--Spasage 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Actually if you wanted to change the name, you should have initiated a process of renaming the category instead of creating a rival. If you still like to do so, that's absolutely fine, but I think "Muslim Indians" must go for now. Rama's Arrow 07:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I wrote, convention is Category:Muslim Indians. Hopefully we'll do some thing positive. --Spasage 06:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now, as Rama's Arrow says, and move the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization. Two separate logical schemes are bumping into each other here, Category:Fooian people by religion and Category:Specificreligion Fooians. It's worth talking about as a general issue rather than as a proposal affecting one category.--Mereda 14:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete - The article listed under this cat should be transfered to Category:Indian Muslims. Then we can delete it. -- Szvest 19:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[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 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 merge. the wub "?!" 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as well. Like below, this one also has only one child and one parent. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to category:international relations. Osomec 21:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to category:international relations. Calsicol 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. No argument. siafu 21:12, 5 July 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 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 merge to Category:International relations. the wub "?!" 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Foreign policy has one parent category, one chid category, Category:Diplomacy, and one article, Foreign policy. I don't see any thing that this category does except add an unneeded layer of heirarchy. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to category:international relations. Osomec 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to category:international relations.
- Merge and redirect to Category:Foreign relations by country to prevent re-creation.-choster 14:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:International relations. siafu 21:12, 5 July 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.