Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4 edit

Category:New York City geography to Category:Geography of New York City 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 12:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This cat doesn't match its sister cats or Category:Geography of New York. Therefore rename. Scranchuse 23:28, 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:Compositions by musical composer 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 18:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really an article, not a category. Moved contents to Compositions by musical composer – ProveIt (talk) 22:50, 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:University_of_Southern_Mississippi 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 Reverse Merge. - TexasAndroid 12:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. No longer used/needed. – NKirby 22:01, 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.

Beer categories 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 as listed. - TexasAndroid 12:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brewers and breweries to Category:Beer and breweries by region Discussion on Wiki Beer Project: Agreed umbrella change of name for a set of categories

SilkTork 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Yes, yes, please change all of these. I tried this a while back, but not in such a well-done and thorough manner. — BrianSmithson 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I noticed that this area needed looking at a while ago, but actually dealing with it was more hassle than I had time for. Except that the new British cat should probably be called Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom because the UK is a state and "British Isles" is only a physical geography designation. Scranchuse 23:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There doesn't necessarily need to be cats for every country, or every geographical region. Sometimes geographical regions can have more to do with development than political entities, and sometimes it's the other way around. If it's the case with beer inside the UK and Ireland that geography and culture is more relevant than politics, as I would suspect, than I would strongly disagree with that provisio. Blackcap (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support but with the same exception as Scranchuse. Thryduulf 00:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with Scrachuse proviso. And kudos for taking on a badly needed cleanup project. Bearcat 05:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology for Britain is full of problems. Various parts of Britain the British Isles, such as Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey don't come under United Kingdom, yet - as far as beer is concerned - the history and development is related. Breweries such as Guinness (Ireland), Okells (Isle of Man), and Randalls (Guernsey) are considered British, yet if we had a United Kingdom cat we'd have to have a separate one for Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. British Isles covers all these. Indeed, British Isles is the only non-political and wholly inclusive term for the region under discussion. Currently Ireland and Isle of Man are listed under the British breweries cat - if we changed to a United Kingdom cat they'd have to be taken out. SilkTork 07:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, Ireland is most distinctly not part of Britain (though part of it is part of the UK) and it is frankly odd to suggest that it is. Guinness is most distinctly not a British brewery. Sure, it's related, but not the same, just like Portugal is not Spanish, and Denmark is not Swedish. Unfortunately, as Talk:British Isles will make clear, the term "British Isles" will not function like "Iberia" or "Scandinavia" as an umbrella category. "X of Britain and Ireland" or "British and Irish X" will do (cf the Lions rugby team). (I don't think I'm being too touchy here, but it continually amazes me that intelligent educated British people don't seem to realise that Ireland is a different country.) BrendanH 11:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're correct in saying that terminology for Britain is full of problems, and demonstrate that well by then saying 'Various parts of Britain, such as Ireland...' Ireland is not part of Britain, though it is part of the British Isles. Also, who exactly considers the Guinness brewery to be British?! I'd also question why there's a category of British/British Isles and also a Scottish category (part of the UK of GB&NI), when a separate country (Ireland) apparently doesn't merit one? Bastun 11:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Correction made. As for Guinness being considered British, that is all part of the history of and general confusion over these islands and the various terms used to descibe them and the people and political & administrative units that occupy them. Guinness for most of the brewery's history has been under British occupation - its history and development is very much a part of the British Isles as a whole. I wish to avoid any political bias and any potential awkwardness, and have a beer category that encapsules the related and entwined beer and brewing traditions of the whole of the British Isles, which would include the Republic of Ireland in all its various forms over the years. I am aware of the nationalist implications of titles, and do not wish to diminish or hide away any culture, be it Welsh, Manx, Cornish, Scottish, Anglo-Saxon, or Irish in an umbrella term. I have offered up British Isles as the most reasonable solution for the circumstances, as it is a recognised geographic term for the region under discussion and does not carry any political or administrative baggage. As it stands at the moment, Guinness is in Category:Irish breweries which is in Category:British breweries. My proposal is more accurate, fair and non-political than the current situation. SilkTork 14:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the considered response. Like I said above, British Isles is seen as problematic, and British and Irish is recommended as an alternative. Does that lead to a situation with Category:Beer and breweries in Britain and Ireland, containing Category:Beer and breweries in Britain and Category:Beer and breweries in Ireland, where Category:Beer and breweries in Britain contains in turn Category:Beer and breweries in England etc, like so:
                    Cat:Britain & Ireland
                               /\
                              /  \
                   Cat:Britain    Cat:Ireland
                        /\
                       /  \
            Cat:England    Cat:Scotland etc.
I could live with that, if I'm correct in thinking that multiple nesting of categories isn't really a problem, and that proliferation of categories isn't a problem. I may well be wrong on those counts, as I'm not sure I understand the system in all its subtlety.BrendanH 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not on at all. The Britain and Ireland categories are nothing by a pain. The state is the UK and the UK should be the top category as it is for Category:Companies of the United Kingdom and its subcategories. Osomec 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Britain is not a formal term and does not cover the Crown Dependencies. British Isles covers the entire area we are talking about quite neatly and without any political bias. As part of the proposal above it should be noted that I have already included Scotland and England which are to be subcats of the British Isles. I hadn't got around to dealing with the Republic of Ireland (now have) nor Wales, Isle of Man, and all the various states which are to be subcats of the USA. Though all those are to be nominated as well as part of the whole uniform approach. I am wondering if people are objecting because they thought that there were to be no subcats? I am so close to this I can see it clearly and forget that other people are not looking through my eyes. We have:

Beer and breweries by region

then:

Beer and breweries in Europe

then:

Beer and breweries in the British Isles

then:

Beer and breweries in the Republic of Ireland

then (if people wish):

Beer and breweries in Leinster

then (if people want to narrow in even more):

Beer and breweries in County Dublin.

I hope this is clear, and will settle people's minds. SilkTork 15:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete suggestion: (1) Category:Beer and breweries in Britain with subcategories including in England, in Scotland and the various dependencies; (2) Category:Beer and breweries in Ireland, and if you feel it is necessary, (3) overarching Category:B&B in Britain and Ireland with 1 and 2 as sub-cats. Even if the various small islands are not part of "Britain", it is only a small fudge to include them there, and it is less problematic than using the British Isles term, which has a history of being objected to. (And it puts Cat:B&B in Ireland as a direct sub-category of Cat:B&B in Europe, as it should be.) BrendanH 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just browsed through Wiki to see how other topics in the British Isles are named and I see that United Kingdom is by far the most common, followed by British. There is no instance, as far as I saw, of British Isles being used. I suppose I preferred British Isles because it is a regional term rather than political, and therefore (I thought) should avoid conflict or bias. United Kingdom, being - for me - a term of political and military dominance of England over Wales and Scotland and Ireland (part of currently, all of at times in the past), I thought that would be the naming convention that most nationalists would object to. As the Wiki naming convention is for United Kingdom, and as people seem to prefer prefer that term, then I will put up no further arguments here. I will instead take the discussion of the naming convention of the British Isles to any noticeboards or projects related to matters of the Isles. SilkTork 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strongly Object no one has even responded to my criticisms on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. This change is badly thought out. The new categories are not sensibly parented: Category:Scottish beer is the current catch-all category for general beer styles, culture etc, parented by Category:Beer and Category:Scotland and the breweries is a subcat, parented by this and companies. "Beer and breweries" is a hybrid category that will look stupid when you browse the category system through companies to more and more subdivisions you will suddenly get to a beer. This is very wrong. Justinc 09:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel no one has responded fully. I've just looked back at your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. It's not immediately clear that you are objecting, which may be why there hasn't been a specific response. You made a comment that you felt that Scottish beer was in some way different to other beer in Britain and I did address that issue - though it doesn't actually have any relevance to the current discussion. Your comment "We already have this. Category:Scottish beer is the general category with articles about local styles and history, containing Category:Scottish breweries. Someone broke America, but thats easy to fix." is, as I now understand it, the start of an argument for a different method of categorising beer and breweries. Another comment I have found is: "The advantage of separating them is for parenting on the category system. Breweries are companies and therefore appear under the Companies in Germany etc categories. Beer and breweries is strangely parented from this point of view. One solution would be to put the beers in categories under the brewery (so you have Category Budweiser containing Bud Light or whatever)." And the final relevant comment would be: "Ok I have looked through the category system again, and aparrt from some misclassifications I cant see the problem. Everything is divided into Category:German beer, which covers the regional styles, culture and so on (and can be subclassified for smaller regional divisions), and then that contains a breweries category. As long as people dont classify breweries into the beer category (which they tend to, but its easily fixed) this works well, as the first thing you see is the overview of the regional styles and so on. Some of this is a mess: American beer is a subset of American breweries rather than the other way round, so no wonder people are confused. Also some articles on individual beers which shouldnt have them have proliferated - these need merging back into the breweries. Breweries are verifable companies which can have references. Very few beers are. I spent a long time removing stuff from Category:Brands of beer and much of the stuff there is actually beers that are culturally or historically notable outside the context of the brewery that made them." I have agreed with you that having beer articles floating around unattached to their breweries is unhelpful. We are in accord on that - and this categorising proposal would assist in encouraging people to put beers into breweries, while a category named Beer in *Country* might in fact encourage people to simply talk about their favourite beer from that particular country. I see no immediate advantage in having two different categories for holding articles which are essentially dealing with the same thing: beer produced by a brewery. The "beer" part of the category name would allow general articles on beer in that particular region to be grouped together with articles on the breweries which produce those beers. Individual breweries can still be cat. tagged under Companies or any other business or other cat. which editors might feel relevant. SilkTork 10:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Justinc: it just seems odd to destroy a whole load of "Beer" and "Breweries" categories for no good reason - they both belong to different category hierarchies (for example the "breweries" categories belong to "companies" supercategories - are we to lose that connection?). All you need to do instead for those places with extant separate beer and breweries categories is create the proposed new categories as new parent cats, without destroying the existing ones. I would also like to Support Scrachuse proviso. --Mais oui! 11:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sometimes a beer and a brewery are easily separated and sometimes not, so this approach will produce more consistency. Perhaps some specialised subcategories could be created at the next level down, but this approach is a good way to bring things together. These categories should all be in the national companies categories and there is no problem with that. Bhoeble 12:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changed to Weak Support Proposed categories seem overly complicated and in some cases, illogical. Is there really a need for "Super-categories" at continental level? With further sub-division, such as Category:Beer and breweries in the British Isles containing "English" and "Scottish" sub-categories? Bastun 14:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (Additional comment: I still maintain that the 'super-categories', at least at continental level aren't necessary. I don't see the relevance of a category containing beers/breweries from, say, Turkey and Japan, for instance. But based on Osomenc's comment and provided United Kingdom is used rather than British, the main thrust of the proposal seems fine to me. Changed by Bastun 09:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
    • I agree with you on the continent categories, but voting oppose here won't remove them, and will just help to preserve all the existing inconsistencies. If you support the main thrust of the proposal (and you haven't said you don't) could you please consider voting support and then coming back with nominations for any specific categories you have issues with. If everyone who has problems with a few specifics votes "oppose all" none of this mess will get fixed. Osomec 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with ammendment to UK as outlined in my comments here. This whole proposal needs sorting.
                       Cat:Breweries
                            /\
                           /  \
                      Cat:UK  Cat:RoI
                        /\
                       /  \
            Cat:England    Cat:Scotland etc.

I see a more logical proposal as I have pictured in the diagram above, thus creating the need for the category Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom, and sub-cats off it if necessary. Adding a category for the British Isles (or for the two main islands "Britain and Ireland) is just another unecessary step to have to go through. --Mal 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I read that as a support vote with use of United Kingdom for the British category, so heading it up with oppose seems misleading. Osomec 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have adjusted my vote on the basis of your comment on my talk page. Cheers. --Mal 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all with use of "United Kingdom" as discussed. Osomec 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These often contain much the same things. The breweries categories are company categories so the conventions for company categories apply. Carina22 00:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use United Kingdom rather than British. Carina22 00:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with amendment to "United Kingdom" Athenaeum 13:03, 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:Preachers 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 19:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and redundant category. Only entry was an article on a bishop (Leontine T. Kelly), for which it was superfluous (all bishops do or have done some preaching); no explanation for how this category is to be distinguished from the many other categories relating to christian ministry. --BrownHairedGirl 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not my subject - but I just popped four pages in the cat without any problem - and given the long list of preachers and evangelists this could become a very strong and useful category. I'm not sure the difference between an evangelist and a preacher - but as there doesn't appear to a cat for evangelist, this cat should allow for groupings of articles related to both. SilkTork 17:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again - I don't know this subject, but it would appear that those you list would be be usefully tagged in this category. It may be the case, as Lbbzman suggests, that this cat could be further divided into more specific areas of preaching. There are already examples on wikipedia of people creating lists of preachers - such as this one; and the title of the cat does suggest that the criteria is those who preach rather than those who think. Though, no doubt, there are many who do both. SilkTork 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CategoryRedirect if appropriate. I'd advocate redirecting to Category:Christian ministers if appropriate. That is, only if the term "preacher" is a Christian-only term, which I'm not sure of. If "preacher" can also refer to a non-Christian worship leader, then my vote would be to keep, and have this category become a parent to Christian ministers as well as the equivalent in other religions. Lbbzman 12:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful category. Rjensen 16:26, 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:Piccadilly Radio DJ's to Category:Piccadilly Radio DJs 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 13:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation. An apostrophe indicates a possessive (the DJ's cat was ill). A plural requires no apostrophe (Both of the DJs were nominated for an award) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy rename 62.31.55.223 23:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as above. David Kernow 02:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. As the creator of the category it was simply a matter of not paying attention when I started it. Pally01 07:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (However, disagree with fixing the capitalization of Radio as it forms part of the company's title. Pally01 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy rename, and while we're at it, fix the capitalization of radio. - EurekaLott 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, my mistake. Never mind! - EurekaLott 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename and keep the capital as it's the name of the station, see Piccadilly Radio. mattbr30 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, am I allowed to vote delete? It doesn't seem to me to be a very encyclopedic category. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:48, 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:Cult books 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 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category; empty for over a month. MakeRocketGoNow 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same comment could be made about the other cult categories. The objective criteria is books which are significantly adored by people are included while books which are not significantly adored by people are excluded. The Bible is a cult book because it is adored. Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives by V. I. Arnold is not a cult book because it is not adored. SilkTork 23:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...although I wouldn't consider the Bible to be a "cult book". Perhaps this category is too tricky to be viable... Regards, David Kernow 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since at least the 1940s, the approach of orthodox, conservative or fundamentalist Christians was to apply the meaning of cult such that it included those religious groups who used (possibly exclusively) non-standard translations of the Bible." I should think that the Bible is the basis for more cults than any other book, albeit it with non-standard translations, interpretations or uses. This cat could be the basis for a number of articles on the nature of such religious cults influenced by the Bible, as well as more ephemeral cult books. Christianity itself started out as a cult offshoot of the Bible. SilkTork 07:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Be interesting to see how this develops. Could become a valuable research tool. SilkTork 23:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation, if and when someone actually wants to put some things into the category. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just popped a few books in there to give people some idea of what to do. SilkTork 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought I understood what this was supposed to be about until I saw Recovery from Cults (book) in the category. In what way is this supposed to be similar to Dune (novel)? Yes, it has "cult" in the title, but it's a different sense of the word. (i.e. a controlling and destructive religious or pseudo-religious group, as opposed to an intensely devoted and quirky associated fandom.) If the category can't be given a clear definition, I'll vote delete. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are only eight books listed, and none seem to fit the definition of cult status.
  • Delete. There's no definition of what makes them cult books. – LGagnon 13:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there being no response to my comment above, this category is much too vaguely defined to be useful. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 11 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:Israel Defense Forces guided missiles 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 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the same as Category:Guided missiles of Israel, seing as how the IDF is Israel's only military. – Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 19:09, 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:Science fiction fans 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very difficult to verify, thus difficult to manage, and unencycopedic. The word "fan" is so dubious it's just barely a designation - it could include actors, presidents, serial killers and kids if they just like science fiction. Such cateogories become populated with so many tangentially related ppl that the categories become useless, and the articles get cluttered with categories. But based on new criteria set by Robert A. West, I would support a name change to something along the lines of Category:Science fiction fandom people under Category:Science fiction fandom. --Esprit15d 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete. No context, no explanation that could be verified, and most of the articles do not mention science fiction. Ideally we'd have something similar to List of notable Star Trek fans, but we do not need the category in its absence. ×Meegs 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful if criteria can be discerned. JonMoore 22:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't classify by hobby. The info will always be incomplete and often dubious. It wouldn't be very important even if all of it could be guaranteed to be complete and accurate. Scranchuse 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 12:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too broad. I like the Star Trek one, but not this.--Mike Selinker 16:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Most of these are accurate, and almost all of those I sampled mentioned either fandom or fanzines. I don't see why it's hard to verify; many of the people on the list have biographies or autobiographies; Worldcon publishes membership lists; and fanzine authorship can be verified from the fanzine. Septentrionalis 05:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In some cases, fannishness is the claim to notability. It is silly to deprive an article of its only non-trivial cat. (For sources for some of these, see also Sam Moskowitz's The Immortal Storm.) Septentrionalis 14:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Where else would we categorize people whose principle claim to notability is organizing conventions, running fanzines, etc? Star Trek fandom is a distinct entity from SF fandom – there is crossover, but many people who organize, say, Worldcon, despise Trek. Obviously, categorization should be based on verifiable statements in the bio itself. Where bios do not meet this, they should be fixed or decatted. I have attempted criteria in Category talk:Science fiction fans#Criteria for inclusion. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but restrict application to those notable as SF fans. Alai 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SF fandom dates back to the 1930s as a popular-cultural institution which significantly influenced and supported the successes and advancements within the genre. Members of SF fandom are properly called "Science fiction fans". The identities and roles of fans across times are very EASY to verify from a number of books and websites devoted to fan history. "Notability", on the other hand, is a POV thing by Wikipedia policy. Biographies of listed fans should be clear enough as to their places in and contributions to the institutions and evolution of Science fiction as a whole. Objections appear to be coming from people who are not familiar with SF fandom or its history; as is too often the case with Wikipedia, decision-making is often in the hands of people who spend too much time nosing around for things to criticize in areas with which they have little or no knowledge. 12.73.196.165 01:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. By proposing this on CfD, Esprit15d stimulated me to write a set of suggested criteria, and we may be able to keep the category useful by not using it for everyone who likes the genre. All to the good.Robert A.West (Talk) 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy you have worked up some criteria - though the Category header seemed plain enough to me - and believe you are showing good faith in so doing. I have a harder time seeing that in a proposal to delete the Category for reasons which are themselves vague and pejoratively so, including an accusation of it being "unencylopedic", along with some of the followup agreement posts. They seem to be written by people with no sense of the reality of the first American, subsequently Amer-Euro-Asian (not sure about Africa), human subculture which is Science fiction fandom and, therefore, of the importance of its populace, Science fiction fans. Putting the Cat up for wholesale deletion rather than proposing criteria, or a clearer header, or ongoing monitoring - not sure that Roger Ebert or Janis Ian belong here, e.g.) is, if not a matter of bad faith, then certainly it is a matter of poor judgment, and it would not be the first Cat to disappear for want of common sense among those who pass by and vote when a deletion is proposed. And, I have been around this site long enough to *assume* nothing. 12.73.195.48 03:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually am a science fiction fan, and write fan fic for some fandoms. Which is unrelated to my nomination. I've expanded my nomination rationale to further explain why I nominated it for deletion (or at least renaming). The criteria added to the page is a step in the right direction.--Esprit15d 12:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith accepted. However, I'd observe that putting a Cat up for Deletion wasn't/isn't necessary if criteria for inclusion/exclusion are more to the point. Those can just be added by any interested Wikipedian, and enforced by periodic review of the contents, which is how Wikipedia works anyway. There's no way under the Wiki system to prevent "abuse" of Cats, or articles or lists or anything else, except by periodic policing. 12.73.194.122 03:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Spasage 12:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Would support a category for fanzine writers and editors. 128.36.90.72 14:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bad idea. "Fanzine writers and editors" were not the only people in fandom making it work. This is like confining, say, "Americans" to just newspaper editors and reporters.
Comment again, "Notability" is not a Wikipedian standard; it is POV, relative, in the eye of the beholder. The best approach is to define a broad range of specific and concrete (measurable) criteria for inclusion, based on the nature of what SF Fandom was and is all about. 12.73.194.122 03:05, 12 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:Wikipedians who feel good today 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 13:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes too much, meaning it can't (or likely won't) be subst'd, adding to the server load. Also currently unpopulated. Esprit15d 18:22, 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:Hoboken, New Jersey Mayors to Category:Mayors of Hoboken, New Jersey 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 13:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mayors of X formulation is used elsewhere in Category:Leaders of cities in the United States, and the existing form is miscapitalized. choster 17:54, 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:Space flight control room positions 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton category. Alai 17:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article in the cat is dependent on the cat, and is a new article. I'm assuming that this cat will grow as the article does name several other positions. Give it time. Build it and they will come. SilkTork 17:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what sense "dependent"? It'll be perfectly happy in the parent, Category:Spaceflight. I'm assuming that once there actually exists more than one article to put in it, this category might make some sense, and can easily be created, but as it stands, it's worse than useless. Delete. Alai 17:32, 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:Subdivisions by country to Category:Political divisions by country 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 consensous not clear enough. - TexasAndroid 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: discussion may be continued on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is being changed to what is not clear. I'm sorry, but with this complex a set of changes, they really need to be spelled/listed out. Some of these were overlapped by the debates below that were definitely No Consensous. I will encourage the submitter to resubmit as one unbrella debate, not three, and this time listing out exactly what he wants changed. There really is no rush on this. It can easily wait another 7 days. - TexasAndroid 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "subdivision (land)" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is Administrative division or Political division. --William Allen Simpson 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Umbrella – Please make this an umbrella category rename of the subcategories. I'd list all 103 subcategories, but would prefer not to be lynched. Suffice it to say that they all need renaming.
  • Support as nominator --William Allen Simpson
  • Prefer Administrative divisions. In much more common use than "political divisions" (per Google search), by more authoritative sources (Bartleby, the CIA and Guiness Book), and used more often in the context in which we are using it here, geographical sub-regions of a sovereign state. "Subdivision" is the incorrect term entirely.--Esprit15d 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment statistical regions are not administrative regions. but that is what is sometimes is included in the cats. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Only if done consistently. This is only possible if the more neutral term "Administrative Division" is used. As noted below, creating Political Divisions of France doesn't make sense as it is a political unit. The term Administrative Divisions may seem counterintuitive for more federalised countries as Russia, the US and Germany, but it is much more neutral and much easier applied consistently. The Minister of War (Peace) 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree about France. But still think that the overall category be "Political divisions", and using the correct term for federalized countries (such as the US below) makes sense. There's no known reason that every subcategory needs to have the same identical leading words. --William Allen Simpson 01:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, just discovered Category:Political divisions of the Republic of China, that escaped the out of process renaming to "subdivisions" because it was never added into the old heirarchy. --William Allen Simpson 02:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm sorry about this, but if you really are proposing an umbrella name change then you really do have to go and tag all 103 categories and do this properly, giving people due notice. No, you will not get "lynched" - you may well lose the argument but no corporal nor capital punishment will ensue. --Mais oui! 11:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many pardons, I was actually thinking of the tremendous visual load on the reviewers here. But since this very day got Beer categories later in the day, I'll work on posting all 103 entries here. It will take ten to twelve hours, so please be patient. --William Allen Simpson 16:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that you need to list all the categories here by name (please don't), just tag all the categories so they have notice. --JeffW 01:12, 9 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.

Subdivisions to Administrative divisions 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: discussion may be continued on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Administrative divisions are the next level of division under Political division. In short, the previously existing, technically accurate, naming scheme was replaced by inaccurate naming.

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.

Subdivisions to Political divisions 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: discussion may be continued on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "subdivision (land)" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is Administrative division or Political division.

Conditional support. See above The Minister of War (Peace) 21:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "Administrative Divisions". Striking earlier support; the original nomination for rename mentioned that the term should be "Administrative Divisions" or "Political Divisions, but the idea now seems to be to use different terms, which is a bad idea. The technical accuracy argument is only valid for the US, but it will be a horribly subjective affair applying this to other countries (does The Netherlands have Administrative or Political divisions?). Let's pick one term, and stick with it. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain although at present I'd prefer "Administrative divisions" to "Political divisions". David Kernow 18:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "Administrative divisions", "Second-level administrative divisions", "Third-level administrative divisions", etc., and note that the US Geonames folks use this as well (for whatever that's worth). Carlossuarez46 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer "Administrative divisions" Mayumashu 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – my preference is technical accuracy over convenience, these have been identified as properly named, due to the independence of the next level divisions. --William Allen Simpson 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose would split "subdivisions of XY country" - categories into two cats. please bring this to the project page first.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms first. - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now, need to define terms first. I believe that some changes are in order, especially in regards to how we are defining the terms we are using. It is important that we come to a consensus on the usage of terms such as "subdivisions", "administrative divisions".. etc. Though it may seem like nitpicking, these terms, as well as how they relate to nations or states is important. I strongly suggest discussing these issues at WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming#Umbrella terms and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) before any final decesion is made here. -Loren 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The terminology is certainly important. But the discussion is already here, why put it there? I have posted messages on those pages to invite people to discuss it here instead. The Minister of War (Peace) 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Sounds good. My main concern at the moment is the relation of subdivisions/administrative divisions to the state/country they're being listed as a part of. While this isn't a problem with most regions it does pose a significant challenge in regions where more then one state with the same name exists (i.e. North and South Korea, the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan), the Republic of Congo and the Dem. Republic of Congo... etc). Do we crosslist subcategories from each of the states under a single geographic region? Or do we list administrative regions solely under categories for each state (affairs of state being restricted to the state they relate to, my personal POV)? I'm sure there are other issues in terms of wording that other people could bring up for discussion. -Loren 08:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment terminology discussion should not go to an obscure CfD page. terminology also applies to to articles. The best thing IMO is to improve the umbrella term articles (Administrative division, Political division, Country subdivision, Subnational entity) or to discuss the matter on the related project page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional oppose as per Loren et al.; spurious. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo. This should deal with the problem of what is an admin vs a a political division, so we do not need to make a judgment. Referring to a Canadian province and a US or Australian state as an Administrative division somehow seems wrong, while counties, municipalities, regions, etc, are clearly "administrative" and not political. "Subdivision" just sounds wrong". Luigizanasi 05:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment if it just sounds wrong, then wait a while and you get used to it ;-). Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo is quite long and may become longer if one implements a subcat with historic divisions only. And then replace Foo by Democratic Republic of the Congo. Furthermore this would not cover areas just set up for statistical purpose. (The official Regions of Brazil). I made a stub about Country subdivisions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment I don't believe that Wikipedia should be in the business of inventing new meanings for words. A "subdivision" means that something that was divided is divided again. In my Canadian geographical context, subdivision can mean to things: either a suburban neighbourhood where a piece of farmland was subdivided into individual plots, or in the context of Statistics Canada where a Census division is a, well, division of a province into counties or similar areas, and a Census subdivision is some form of municipality, Indian Reserve or unorganized territory. Using "subdivision" for Canadian provinces completely violates the principle of least astonishment. When I first saw provinces or counties referred to as subdivisions, I must say I was astonished at a novel use of the word. Dictionaries did confirm that my astonishment was justified. Political or administrative divisions (your pick or both, I'm not particularly hung up on either), on the other hand, are clear terms for what is meant here. Let us not forget that Wikipedia is not for the convenience of editors, but for the public using it, and misusing the term subdivision will only confuse potential readers. Luigizanasi 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment agree, the "sub" is kind of strange. But this would better go to linguists first, since language not allways is 100% logical. I will add a notion about the non-logic into Country subdivision. Please help to improve the article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment It's not about logic, it's about usage and the meaning of words in the English language, and . "Subdivision" on its own in this context simply does not mean what you intend it to mean. "Administrative division" and "political division" do, as do "political subdivision" or "administrative subdivision" for that matter. But "subdivision of Foo" on its own does not, it is just confusing to an English-speaking user and a misuse of the word. Check with any dictionary. Luigizanasi 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • what do I intend? Do I intend to mean administrative divisions and political divisions only? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Agree with Luigizanasi. Yesterday, Conradi just moved and renamed dozens of pages to conform to his newly made-up term "Country subdivisions", that he found in one ISO document. Heck, he renamed his own {{subnational entity}}, that he's been sticking onto everything. The world is not "organized" and "logical". This is an encyclopedia! It should document reality, in the accepted and established political science terminology, not try to force the entire world into a mold. --William Allen Simpson 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did found the term actually in three ISO documents. How is the term newly made up if it exists in three ISO documents? Why is it my term? You can also check the history of all the Subdivisions of XY articles and categories - you may find some hints that the term was used for example in 2004-09-19 when Category:Subdivisions_of_Finland was created. Can you tell me how many dozens of pages I moved and renamed in your opinion? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Near as I can tell, ISO 3166 uses Country subdivision, not "Subdivision" on its own. If we are to use the awkward ISO terminology, the it should be Category:Country subdivisions of Foo. "Sudivision" on its own & by itself does not convey the meaning of administrative/political divisions/subdivisions / sub-national entities. When I see "Subdivisions of Foo", I take it to mean minor suburban neighbourhouds in Foo. Luigizanasi 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment I suggest to read the title of ISO 3166 again. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • comment. I suggest you read it again, more carefully this time. You might want to ponder why the title is Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions, and not Codes for the representation of names of countries and subdivisions, and why the subtitle of the relevant section is Part 2: Country subdivision code and not simply Part 2: Subdivision code. It might help to look up adjective, possessive pronoun, possessive adjective and determinative possessive pronouns. Sorry, but "subdivision" on its own without a qualifying attributive adjective or noun simply does not mean the same thing as political/administrative division/subdivision, and its use in that way will only confuse people. Luigizanasi 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • William's statement Heck, he renamed his own {{subnational entity}}, that he's been sticking onto everything. - is wrong in at least two aspects, maybe three. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:01, 11 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 volleyball 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 19:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prejedice against creating the more properly named named Category:Wikipedians who play volleyball or similar. But if the new name is created, it will need to be populated or it will likely end up right back here. - TexasAndroid 19:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Wikipedia specific category for user pages Pak21 16:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Empty and undesirable. Bhoeble 16:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query how is this different from Category:User instruments and subcategories, and numerous other special-interest User categories? Powers 16:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a subcat of Category:Volleyball, an article-space category. This can obviously be fixed without a delete though; if anyone does that, they might like to fix up Template:User Volleyball Player as well, which was including lots of user pages in Category:Volleyball until earlier today. This is just trying to fix the mess that was created from all that. Cheers --Pak21 16:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Possibly empty due to Wikipedians not yet finding it. I intended this to help volleyball players

find each other for any possible questions for about the history or rules of the sport. I do have to reword the category however, as I forget to put "Wikipedians that are" in the category assignment. --Masssiveego 22:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If kept, then, rename to "Wikipedians who play volleyball". David Kernow 02:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If somebody's going to fix this category up so it's populated and in the right place, by all means keep it. If they're not, let's get it out of the way. --Pak21 10:14, 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:Pakistani hill stations 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 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is empty and redundant to the populated and probably better named Category:Hill Stations of Pakistan. Thryduulf 15:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Powers 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nominator. Bhoeble 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, although is "Hill Stations" a proper noun? David Kernow 02:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is at Hill station and starts "A hill station or Hill Station...", it consistently uses a lowercase 's', including "Hill stations in Pakistan". I have no opinion on it either way, I just spotted the duplication when looking at Category:Pakistan. Thryduulf 12:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each maybe called "[Placename] Hill Station" or the like, but as a group I think they'd be referred to as "Pakistani hill stations" or "Hill stations of Pakistan". Either of these two names seems fine to me. Regards, David Kernow 02:01, 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:Star Trek fans 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are two tangentially related things that isn't encyclopedic and is very difficult to manage since it's difficult to verify. Esprit15d 14:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete. The article List of notable Star Trek fans is sufficient, I think. Powers 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category and the equally trivial Category:Science fiction fans. - EurekaLott 17:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List, with its explanations, is far superior. Note: Science fiction fans has been nominated above. ×Meegs 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mike Selinker's proposal below to rename is fine with me too. ×Meegs 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the category's creator. I created this category initially to house people such as Gabriel Koerner and Bjo Trimble who are defined by their Star Trek fandom. Others have been added who are conjectural. I would advocate their removal. JonMoore 20:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever happens, this category should be cleaned out. Tom Hanks and Eddie Murphy make no sense here.--Mike Selinker 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename is fine as per Mike's proposal. Really, if we got rid of this category and the science fiction fans one, there would be some notable Trekkies would not be in any category but their year of birth... JonMoore 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Trekkies. The only reason I propose this is that I don't want to have parallel categories for M*A*S*H fans and the like, but this particular group of fans is eminently notable and deserves its own category.--Mike Selinker 14:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list is fine, we don't need a cat. Carlossuarez46 20:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per Mike's proposal. We need to have some category to put people who's only claim to fame is Trekkiedom. --JeffW 16:38, 10 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:Historical empires of India to Category:Empires and kingdoms of India 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 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories ordered into a hierarchical structure and one is redundant. – Domino theory 11:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Historical empires into Empires and kingdoms. A rename isn't going to work because the latter already exists. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom. Bhoeble 16:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. David Kernow 02:05, 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:Kingdoms to Category:Monarchies 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 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms is empty and already redundant compared with the non trivial dichotomy of Monarchy/Monarchies. – Domino theory 10:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Even the Kingdom article is a disambiguation page pointing to Monarchy. No need for a category similarly named. Powers 13:05, 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.

merge Category:Fictional plants with Category:Fictional plant species 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 reverse merge. - TexasAndroid 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the two categories are about the same thing --Melaen 10:23, 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:U.S. State legislatures to Category:State legislatures 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 13:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation and form to match parent cat. Vegaswikian 06:00, 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:Units of the U.S. Army National Guard to Category:United States Army National Guard units 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 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation and form to match parent cat. Vegaswikian 05:53, 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:Aubergine 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 speedy deleted. Syrthiss 15:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense category entry DVD+ R/W 04:37, 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:Soldiers 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 Merge. - TexasAndroid 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant, see Category:Members of the United States armed forces – ProveIt (talk) 04:28, 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:Pennsylvania National Guard 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 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not very useful ... ProveIt (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can see this becoming 50 categories with one, or two at best, articles each. There is already a National Guard category with some subcategories that for now seem adequate.--Nobunaga24 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nobunaga24. Also alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Powers 13:05, 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:Separate Battalions of the United States Army to Category:Battalions 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 13:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Makes category a bit more inclusive; calling it "Separate Battalions" leaves out some units, such as the different Ranger battalions, which are not separate battalions, but worthy of articles in their own right. Currently they are categorized under Category:United States Army units which is a very general classification covering everything from a 5 man fire team to an army group Nobunaga24 02:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - why not simply create the Battalions category and make Separate Battalions a subcategory? - choster 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if the phrase "Separate Battalion" is even in army usage. I've never heard it, and I was in a few battalions that didn't belong to a higher regiment. I know separate brigade is used. Separate would indicate, I believe, the lack of a higher HQ that the unit type would typically belong too - brigades fall under divisions, but separate brigades do not fall under divisions. A lot of these battalions have a brigade or brigade-sized higher HQ, whether it's a DISCOM, or Support Group, etc. --Nobunaga24 04:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an additional note - the phrase "separate battalion", when searched on .mil websites, produces 430 hits, and on .army.mil 313 hits, and almost all of these, from what I have looked at, refer to historical names of units, i.e. "107th Separate Battalion, Coast Artillery". I think the designation is no longer used. --Nobunaga24 04:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename so long as designation "Separate Batallion" no longer in use. David Kernow 02:09, 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:Infantry divisions of the United States to Category:Infantry divisions 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 13:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - More specific category name, brings in line with other unit naming conventions Nobunaga24 02:32, 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:Strike 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 Delete. - TexasAndroid 18:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emty category. Ingoolemo talk 02:28, 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:Armored divisions of the United States to Category:Armored divisions 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 13:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - More specific category name, brings in line with other unit naming conventions Nobunaga24 02:27, 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:US Army Lineage and Honors 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 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no criteria/description given what what constitutes this category. What was in this category was three army units, but I couldn't ascertain why those units out of hundreds were in the category, so I removed them. Nobunaga24 02:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, with the caveat that we probably should have left the articles in the category until the result of the CfD discussion is known. Powers 13:05, 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:Anti Iraq war people 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists based on political opinion (not affiliation) are hopelessly vague. Are these people actively against the war or just expressed disapproval of the war? It can't be the latter as that would be hopelessly large and useless. Where should the line be drawn? Fundamentally, it goes against the notion of an encyclopedia, which is to explain people's nuances, rather than categorize them like insects. --Mmx1 01:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but there isn't really a 'pro-war movement' or 'pro-war activists' in the same sense that there is an anti-war movement, describing itself as such. Most people who are pro-war do not define their politics as such, see themselves as part of a unified movement, or spend the majority of their political energy on a single issue. Kalkin 22:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per Schuminweb. --JeffW 16:47, 10 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:Issue in the Culture Wars 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strict count is 4 - Delete, 7 - rename, 2 - Keep as-is. - TexasAndroid 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopelessly POV category, and even if we could agree on what constitutes a "Culture War Issue", I don't see the usefulness of the category, either. Powers 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Hawkestone 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to American "Culture War" issues United States Culture War issues (per Thryduulf). While I do foresee some NPOV issues, I believe some reasonable criteria could be applied to what belongs here. Since there is a culture war article that has been able to establish events and issues that have evoked the "culture war" designation, things mentioned there (and their related articles) would be suitable candidates for this category. I glanced through the cat, and everything there I would have no objection including (except maybe public nudity - is that really in any kind of substantial dispute?). It's more apparent than it would initially seem about what constitutes a "culture war" issue: Iraq War? No. Gay marriage? Yes. I think this is a case of the proof is in the pudding in whether or not appropriate items will be placed there. And to address usefulness, it would group items that have lead to the evolution of US social norms.--Esprit15d 14:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Category:United States Culture War issues as per Category talk:Issue in the Culture Wars. Thryduulf 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support that name change as well.--Esprit15d 17:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to something making it US specific, since that is what the term culture war usually refers to (as far as I know). The Ungovernable Force 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The current name is too vague and informal an a good number of these topics are not U.S. specific so having them in a U.S. category is inappropriate. The U.S. has no better claim over articles on global topics than any other country. Bhoeble 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I started the category some months back as a way of connecting political issues that were relatable only in that they were "culture war" issues. I don't see the category as being hopelessly POV, though I think it requires significant editorial restraint and oversight to prevent POV-pushers from imposing arbitrary agenda. --ScienceApologist 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not just worried about NPOV, but also original research. The dispute on what should be included (eg nudity) is an indicator that original research is being done. Andjam 12:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and rename. It has been a major political issue for 20+ years and needs thorough coverage. Rjensen 16:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User:Esprit15d thinks that it is "apparent" that the Iraq war is not a culture war issue, but later lists Bush-Blair memo (a war issue) as an item listed in the culture war category. If a single person cannot agree what is a culture war issue, how can wikipedia? Andjam 04:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: There're two issues covered in this cat (both of which I addressed separately): culture and the US. The Bush-Blair memo is a US issue (yes), but not a culture issue, so it doesn't belong there. I think that's pretty clear. I really don't really know what more to say.--Esprit15d 13:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe I just don't understand the term "Culture War". The Culture War article does little to explain it. To me this seems like an indiscriminate collection of articles that involve some sort of political or social controversy. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am, we need a much clearer definition of "culture war" and the issues that belong to it. Powers 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that. There are several books and sources that "legitimized" the term, and stronger reference to such sources can be made in the article, which I (and others I'm sure) can incorporate more cohesively.--Esprit15d 13:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Esprit. 128.36.90.72 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, though I think it should be "Issues" not "Issue" Guettarda 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Category:United States Culture War issues, or something along those lines. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful cat. Where's the POV? FeloniousMonk 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The POV is in determining what constitutes a Culture War issue. Given the amorphous definition of the term itself, I don't see how any one issue can be classified as unambiguously a member. Further, even if the POV argument isn't compelling enough, I just don't see the usefulness of grouping Intelligent design with Public nudity and English-only movement. Maybe you can explain it to me. Powers 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the category can seem arbitrary, but that's part of the particular raison d'être for categorizing in the first place. There is nothing more NPOV than an arbitrary categorization where the meaning is stripped from the category (no one is taking sides as to which political position is "correct", the category just declares the issues to be of a particular volatile sort). Connections are drawn elsewhere so this type of categorization is not novel to Wikipedia. E.g., there are a number of conservative groups that draw comparisons between loose morals (i.e. public nudity – though I'm not aware of a cited statement that this is part of the culture wars – but I digress) and the acceptance of evolution in the public school system (i.e. intelligent design controversy). As well, a good portion of these pundits also believe that America is the "beacon on the hill" and its monolithic language is patriotically worth preserving against invasion (i.e. English-only movement). The "culture war" language is adopted to summarize the beseiged and aggressive approach to this discourse. The polarization and false-dichotomization of the American political system has resulted recently in a claim of a bifurcation between cultures (e.g. "red state culture" and "blue state culture", "coastal elitism" and "heartland", "cities" and "rural", "religious" and "secular", etc.) that is embraced by commentators with varied perspectives. Yes, the current culture war article could expand a lot more on this, but the political issues labeled as "culture wars" are in principle neutrally observable. Yes, there are issues with inappropriate categorization of articles, but all that should be required to adequately categorize a particular article is a reference to a notable commentator who claims that the issue is representative of the culture wars. Such quotes are fairly easy to come by these days. --ScienceApologist 05:00, 11 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:Compositions by Instrumentation 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 17:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article trying to be a category ProveIt (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No prejudice against recreation as an article, ideally with fewer redlinks. Powers 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 16:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I usually vote for this things to be moved to an article, but there's no substance. He should start a project (either personally or with WP) to create these articles. Until then, this needs to be deleted.--Esprit15d 18:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; features incorrect capitalization anyway. David Kernow 02:12, 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4&oldid=1132262407"