Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 3

< April 2	April 4 >

April 3 edit

Northern Irish categories (block rename proposal) 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. - TexasAndroid 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are all grammatically incorrect. According to various opinion polls taken in Northern Ireland, "Northern Irish" is the most neutral term, and is preferred over and above terms such as "Ulster-person (man/woman)", "British", "Irish" or "Scots-Irish". The term "Northern Ireland" or, by extention, "Northern Irelander", is never used except in the context of saying "I come from Northern Ireland".. just as an English person might say "I come from England".

Further to this, the category Category:Northern Irish people is cognate with other similar categories (see English people, Scottish people, Welsh people, British people, Irish people, French people, German people, European people etc etc). The accepted standard in Wikipedia seems to be Category:Fooian Fooers. I see no reason that Northern Irish people should be treated any differently.

As per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006 April 1#Category:Northern Ireland people to Category:People of Northern Ireland...

Categories for moving:
Category:Lists of Northern Ireland people to Category:Lists of Northern Irish people

Merge:
Category:Northern Ireland non-fiction writers to Category:Northern Irish non-fiction writers
Category:Northern Ireland people by occupation to Category:Northern Irish people by occupation
Category:Northern Ireland writers to Category:Northern Irish writers

--Mal 23:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, given the strong support in voting on this page for the name change from Category:Northern Ireland people to Category:Northern Irish people (see link provided here above this list by User:Mal) Mayumashu 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hawkestone 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mal. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. However, I would query if the decision on this should not be combined with the debate on the "top-level" category, so that any relevant discussion takes place in one place. Valiantis 14:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify exactly which super-cat you mean Valiantis. --Mal 16:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Category:Northern Ireland people. If that is renamed (as is likely) then I think these subcats should all follow suit. I was (perhaps unnecessarily) concerned we might end up with a situation where the higher level cat was renamed and not the subcats (or vice-versa). Apologies if my comment was unclear. Valiantis 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Except Category:Politics of Northern Ireland. "Politics of Fooland" is the standard form for all Politics by country cats. Valiantis 14:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've removed that cat from the list above. --Mal 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had no idea there was an doubt on the matter until the issue arose here. Bhoeble 16:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Her Pegship 01:29, 5 April 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:Swords of the Ancients 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 Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spam ... ProveIt ^(talk) 23:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and list all articles in category for deletion. Lbbzman 21:38, 5 April 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:Performers Banned From The Ed Sullivan Show 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 Delete. - TexasAndroid 15:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 possible members, ever ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivia. -- Samuel Wantman 23:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mention it in the article about the show. Hawkestone 04:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Also features incorrect capitalization. David Kernow 02:20, 5 April 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:User Wes Brown 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 Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity category created by User:Stevennnnnnnnnn. Olessi 22:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no sense at all. Hawkestone 04:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Makes perfect sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wicks (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom and above. David Kernow 02:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above. Bhoeble 12:25, 5 April 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:Cargo aircraft 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 Keep. - TexasAndroid 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is used only for civil aircraft, and thus should be renamed Category:Civil transport aircraft, which would thus bring it more closely in line with the equivalent military category, Category:Military transport aircraft. There is no danger that this renaming will cause confusion, because no airliner is ever referred to as a civil transport aircraft. In fact, this renaming will actually elucidate matters, because it makes it very clear that the category refers only to civil aircraft—cargo aircraft could theoretically include both military and civil categories. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename, lots of the aircraft listed in the category are for military use. Wh e re ^(talk) 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE subcategorize it with civil trans if you feel like. 132.205.45.110 20:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hoort 21:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if any of the aircraft listed in the category are military aircraft, then it is because they were categorised incorrectly. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Categories#Category:Civil_aircraft states very clearly that Category:Cargo aircraft is reserved for civil aircraft. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:15, 4 April 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:Military reconnaissance aircraft 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. - TexasAndroid 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, there is no such thing as a Civil reconnaissance aircraft; reconnaissance is solely a military venture. Thus, this title is redundant, and I propose it be renamed Category:Reconnaissance aircraft, because the new title will still be completely unambiguous. (The same renaming should take place for all constituent categories as well. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposed renaming simplifies things Wh e re ^(talk) 19:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE the CIA is not a military organization, but it has reconnaissance aircraft. Various police organizations also have reconnaissance aircraft. 132.205.45.110 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, the renaming makes more sense than the current scheme, because it allows the reconnaissance aircraft you cited above to be lumped together with all reconnaissance aircraft—most of which are military in origin. The modified aircraft used by police forces are generally not notable enough for articles. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it needs a supercategory to umbrella the non-military recon aircraft. I was seem to have forgottent to mention that. 132.205.44.134 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support NASA uses a few also, but it's the same category. --Blainster 07:58, 7 April 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:None 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 Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and unused ... perhaps redirect to Category:Category needed? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty, unnessasary, cat Wh e re ^(talk) 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoort 21:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No valid purpose. Hawkestone 04:50, 4 April 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:KBBW 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 Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been a radio station article, creator changed his mind. ProveIt ^(talk) 16:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat Wh e re ^(talk) 19:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoort 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 21:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. David Kernow 02:22, 5 April 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:Greek military aircrat 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 Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and misspelled -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unused misspelled category. - choster 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Wh e re ^(talk) 19:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. David Kernow 02:24, 5 April 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:Health in Prague 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 Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dental Clinic Spam ... ProveIt ^(talk) 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a category, but an article, and the article is an advert. Bhoeble 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not my nomination by the way. Bhoeble 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty cat and ad Wh e re ^(talk) 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoort 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. David Kernow 02:29, 5 April 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:Warhammer 40,000 Gods 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 Deleta. - TexasAndroid 14:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All articles moved to the correctly capitalised Category:Warhammer 40,000 gods. This should probably have been done as a speedy rename, but I've already moved the articles. I'll undo the moves and do it that way if that would expedite things. Pak21 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You're right, it likely should have been a speedy rename, but I don't see any reason to move them back at this point, when they would almost certainly just be moved again in a few days. (assuming there is no opposition) - TexasAndroid 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Wh e re ^(talk) 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who did the FUBAR on the original name. My bad. Delete anyway. -- Saberwyn 22:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. David Kernow 02:30, 5 April 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:Rhode Island State Highways to Category:Numbered routes in Rhode Island 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. - TexasAndroid 15:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is for numbered routes, not state highways (roads maintained by the state). --SPUI (talk - RFC) 10:52, 3 April 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:Lists of people by university affiliation 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. - TexasAndroid 15:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename subcategories from Lists of people by university affiliation - foo to Lists of people by university in foo to match parent Category:People by university. - EurekaLott 06:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of people by university affiliation → Category:Lists of people by university
Category:Lists of people by university affiliation - Australia → Category:Lists of people by university in Australia
Category:Lists of people by university affiliation - Canada → Category:Lists of people by university in Canada
Category:Lists of people by university affiliation - France → Category:Lists of people by university in France
Category:Lists of people by university affiliation - Germany → Category:Lists of people by university in Germany
Category:Lists of people by university affiliation - Hungary → Category:Lists of people by university in Hungary
Category:Lists of people by university affiliation - India → Category:Lists of people by university in India
Category:Lists of people by university affiliation - Ireland → Category:Lists of people by university in Ireland
Category:Lists of people by university affiliation - Russia → Category:Lists of people by university in Russia
Category:Lists of people by university affiliation - Sweden → Category:Lists of people by university in Sweden
Category:Lists of people by university affiliation - UK → Category:Lists of people by university in the United Kingdom
Category:Lists of people by university affiliation - USA → Category:Lists of people by university in the United States
- Comment This nomination has some serious problems. All are procedural, and thus can be solved with a bit more work.
  - 1 - You are not proposing naming the parent category, and yet it is the parent that you have tagged. Since the parent is not being proposed to be renamed, it should not be tagged for renaming.
  - 2 - You need to tag each of the sub-cats that you actually want to rename. The tags are to inform anyone who visits that the current category is subject to a rename nomination, thus each needs to be separately tagged.
  - 3- You really should provide a list here of exactly what changes you are proposing. That helps anyone interested in the rename to see at a glance exactly what is involved, rather than having to go digging through the categories to sort it out for themselves. - TexasAndroid 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. I ought to know better than to start making nominations when I have no business being awake. I've amended the initial proposal to address your concerns. - EurekaLott 01:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Rename all per revised nom. -choster 13:31, 7 April 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:Movie studios to Category:Film studios 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. - TexasAndroid 15:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match category:Film and most of the other subcategories of that category. Calsicol 05:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename per nom. Crumbsucker 10:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hawkestone 04:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Valiantis 14:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Is there an echo in here?? Her Pegship 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is called Movie studio, and the category name should match. - EurekaLott 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Films is probably hoping to change the article title to "Film studios" as well, per their naming convention guidelines. Her Pegship 21:26, 8 April 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:Movie websites to Category:Film websites 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. - TexasAndroid 15:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match category:Film and most of the other subcategories of that category. Calsicol 05:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename per nom. Crumbsucker 10:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Wh e re ^(talk) 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Valiantis 14:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Her Pegship 01:18, 5 April 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:Jim Carrey films 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 delete – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A follow up to the below. This is the only subcategory. Calsicol 05:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Calsicol 05:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "filmography" is enough Crumbsucker 10:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Amalas 14:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. -- Samuel Wantman 20:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Her Pegship 01:25, 5 April 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:Films by actor 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 Delete. - TexasAndroid 14:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a consensus against dividing films by actor? Calsicol 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as nominated. Calsicol 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "filmography" is enough Crumbsucker 10:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Amalas 14:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed. Go to the article and add links to the cast, or go to an actor and click on "what links here". -- Samuel Wantman 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why can't we apply that same logic to categories for actors by film or TV show? Arniep 12:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No argument from me. Nominate en masse and I'll support deleting them. In general we should not have these sort of categories if and when scores of articles will end up being in scores of categories. -- Samuel Wantman 02:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated them back in December and got whacked with a torrent of speedy keeps Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_26#Actors_by_series_and_its_sub-categories. Arniep 12:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoort 21:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete. Her Pegship 01:26, 5 April 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:Economic Systems JEL:P 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:Economic systems. - TexasAndroid 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The child of this category should just be inserted in its parent. I'm not sure why it has such a weird name. Beland 04:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also delete all other JEL-coded subcategories of Category:Economics --Francis Schonken 09:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The code JEL refers to the JEL classification codes system used by the Journal of Economic Literature. I proposed using this system at Talk:Economics in response to general concern about the poor state of the economics categories (see also Category_talk:Economics and got limited but positive response. I suggest more discussion there, rather than trying to deal with the categories piecemeal.JQ 04:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Economic systems, similar rename for all similar categories. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've tried to explain at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization there is a good reason for the JEL code at the end of the category name. We need it if we want to use the JEL classification codes. I'd claim in turn that we need something like this if Economics is to justify continued featured article status. The existing set of categories was of hardly any use; far too many categories, but still with huge gaps. Others may disagree of course, but I think the best place for the discussion is probably Wikipedia_talk:Categorization JQ 10:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is the form of attribution they require, rather than just a notation on the category page, then I'd say that burden is too onerous. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per Christopher Parham. If they are unlikely to be populated with more than a handful of similar cross-linked articles, they should all be deleted. The list of JEL classification codes already exists and can be linked to all the related Wikipedia articles and categories. This should be sufficient for anyone looking for articles that way. If the JEL codes are mentioned in the text of all these categories, the references should not imply that articles must be categorized the same way as the JEL codes. For example, they could say "This category is about blah, blah, blah... (Many articles in this category would also have the JEL classification code of 'J'". Also, all of these categories need to be tagged for renaming and listed here at CFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelWantman (talk • contribs)
OK, if someone can do the tagging and renaming, I'll add the necessary text, and try to ensure that there's an article for each category. JQ 03:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Economic Systems JEL:P, Category:Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics JEL:Q, Category:Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting JEL:M, and all similar, for reasons explained at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Extremely long category titles with arcane industry codes; no renaming of these categories advised as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken 09:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go this way, I think you should propose some alternative approach to fixing the evident and long-standing problems with the economics categories. As was established in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, the approach taken in previous instances of this kind such as SOC hasn't been to start from scratch but to use a coherent system as a basis. JQ 09:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove JEL codes from category names --Henrygb 22:24, 7 April 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:Swimming World Disabled Swimmers of the Year to Category:Swimming World World Disabled Swimmers of the Year 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 Delete the first category (Empty, and creator says it's a mistake). No consensous on rename of second cat (several possible new names tossed out, but no consensous reached on final name. - TexasAndroid 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake - I created a duplicate - the first category is wrong.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wording at present seems confusing; presumably chosen as Swimming World not the only entity presenting a "World Disabled Swimmers of the Year" award? If so, suggest longer but clearer Category:People named a "World Disabled Swimmer of the Year" by Swimming World magazine or the like. Otherwise, if this the only such award made, suggest Category:World Disabled Swimmers of the Year and state on category page that this award made by Swimming World. Regards, David Kernow 02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks as if Swimming World is the only entity making such an award, so:
Rename to Category:World Disabled Swimmers of the Year and perhaps mention Swimming World in a preamble. David Kernow 18:13, 7 April 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:World Cup cricketers of the Scotland to Category:World Cup cricketers of Scotland 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 Merge. - TexasAndroid 14:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another careless mistake. Please delete the first. Thankyou.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge Bhoeble 15:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/delete. David Kernow 02:46, 5 April 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:Operations to Category:Military operations 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. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More specific name; otherwise I could put "open-heart surgery" in this category. Nobunaga24 02:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for now; most of those articles need to be renamed anyways, as operational codenames generally shouldn't be used as article titles. Kirill Lok s h in 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 15:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hoort 21:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Mattbr30 21:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I imagine this as a parent category for "Category:Military operations of the X", where X = Something/Somewhere war/conflict/etc, e.g. "Military operations of the Gulf War"...? David Kernow 02:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Looper5920 11:33, 6 April 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:Cambodian images to Category:Images of Cambodia 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. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Cambodia is currently an empty category, but it is the standard nomenclature for subcategories of Category:Images by country. - EurekaLott 02:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Please. Wisekwai 13:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; proposed title is clearer. David Kernow 02:50, 5 April 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:Brigades of the United States to Category:Brigades of the United States Army 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. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - subcategory of Category:United States Army units, more specific name. Nobunaga24 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Cyane 00:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as with similar proposals above. David Kernow 02:50, 5 April 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:Corps of the United States to Category:Corps of the United States Army 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. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - More specific name. The category is a subcategory of Category:United States Army units. Nobunaga24 01:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Cyane 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. Hawkestone 04:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as with similar proposals above. David Kernow 02:51, 5 April 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 armed forces to Category:Military 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. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Redundant categories, military of the United States and United States armed forces are the exact same thing. Nobunaga24 00:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom. Sumahoy 01:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. Amalas 14:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Cyane 00:36, 4 April 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:USGA championships to Category:United States Golf Association championships 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. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation should be removed for clarity, as many have before it. Sumahoy 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename as above. Sumahoy 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. Amalas 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 17:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (creator of category)[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:Badges of the United States military to Category:Awards and decorations of the United States military 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. - TexasAndroid 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a separate category for militay badges is a bit redundant, and really an unnecessary subcategory - it's like having a category for cars, then a subcategory for green cars. Badges are awards and decorations. There is no category for Medals of the United States Military, nor ribbons, nor paper certificates, etc etc. It would be much better to merge, then break the badges down by the already existing categories of Category:United States Air Force awards, Category:United States Army awards, etc. Nobunaga24 00:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominated. Amalas 14:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I suspect "Awards and decorations of the United States X" categories viable, where X = Army, Navy, etc. David Kernow 02:53, 5 April 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.