Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 9

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< April 8 April 10 >

April 9 edit

Category:Stampede Wrestling Alumni 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 19:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entries in this category have been manually moved to Category:Stampede Wrestling alumni, rendering the original category redundant. McPhail 02:20, 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.

subcategories of Category:Computer vision 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 14:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are badly named and need renaming:

im not totally happy with the new names so any suggestions are welcome, but they definately need changing from whats there now. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nominator. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, except how about making /people into Category:Computer vision researchers? ×Meegs 12:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support all three of David Kernow's suggest exceptions below. ×Meegs 00:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, including the people category. "People" allows the inclusion of executives. Sumahoy 23:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, except:
Category:Computer vision/People → Category:Computer vision researchers, as I don't believe there are many people associated with computer vision whose notability is not research-based;
Category:Computer vision/Commercial systems → Category:Commercial computer vision systems;
Category:Computer vision/Applications → Category:Applications of computer vision, assuming "applications" does not overlap with "software".
David Kernow 03:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer davids suggestions to my own... unfortunately someones gone ahead and changed the catagories while the debate was still going on (not me). and they did it by copy and paste instead of move :/. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:55, 15 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:Bongo Flava to Category:Tanzanian hip hop musicians 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 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unneccessary delinieation by subgenre. Until I just added a catmore template there wasn't even any description of what on earth "Bongo Flava" is. Bongo Flava is itself a mere redirect to Tanzanian hip hop, which says that "fusion is sometimes called Bongo Flava" (my emphasis). The hip hop by nation categories are already way too deep and underpopulated so this to me is a very clear merge candidate. kingboyk 18:30, 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.

Category:British MPs 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 16:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All four newly created today - articles were previously in Category:British MPs. MPs are elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom on equal terms. I see no clear reason to subdivide them by the nation in which their constituency lies. Also the new names are horrendously long! Action appears to be unilateral on the part of the editor who made the change despite there being no consensus as per the ongoing discussion on whether to divide and/or rename this cat. (See Category talk:British MPs). Valiantis 18:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All merges involve putting the content of a category into another category, often a parent category. Therefore the nominator has done nothing misleading whatsoever. Bhoeble 23:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that they were trying to mislead anybody. Like you, I was merely clarifying what is being proposed here, because it was clear from User comments that people did not realise that these new categories are additions to Category:British MPs, and are not replacements. --Mais oui! 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively they are replacements as all articles in Category:British MPs can potentially be added to one of these subcats. In effect, Category:British MPs will cease to exist except as a holding cat; the cats that will show at the bottom of individual articles will be these subcats, not Category:British MPs. Valiantis 19:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge but rename. Since the category (rather unhelpfully) seems to contain MPs from all time ("This is a category listing current and former Members of the United Kingdom House of Commons") it could grow to many thousands of entries. "MPs are elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom on equal terms" is utterly irrelevant - this isn't politics, it's a Wikipedia CSD. Does it make navigational and organisational sense to subcategorise British MPs? Yes, I'd say so. Is subcategorising them by state a decent solution? Well, it's not the only way but it will suffice (by era or Party are other options). Rename to English MPs, Northern Irish MPs, Scottish MPs, Welsh MPs. --kingboyk 18:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per my vote below, I think this is the most sensible option. There are other categories into which these politicians can be listed (era, party etc, as Kingboyk suggests) - and they should also be created: there is no reason why subcategories which cross reference should not be created. In fact they can be helpful to the user when looking for specific information. --Mal 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I don't think "English MPs, Northern Irish MPs" etc is useful. It could cause confusion of whether we are talking about the nationality of the MP, or the location of their constituency. At least the current title is clear. Astrotrain 18:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, those category names are out of the question. Bhoeble 14:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the rationale and strongly disagree they are "out of the question". Category names should be concise, and any technicalities (such as "this category contains articles about MPS whose constituencies are or were in England") can be covered in the text of the category page. All that said, there are other ways of subcategorising which I might approve of, such as by Party or century. --kingboyk 18:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly the new names are long, but as User:Astrotrain says, at least they are clear. It is very hard indeed to know how they could be renamed without obscuring what they are.
I note that another new subcategory to British MPs is underway too, see Category:British female MPs. --Mais oui! 11:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that female MPs should still be listed in the main Category:British MPs (or whatever subdivisions are decided on) as per Wikipedia guidelines:
For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category
A similar discussion is taking place about female life peers JRawle (Talk) 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge The new categories are useful and pertinent imo. An Siarach
  • Oppose Merge New categories are natural and helpful subcategories; might be better classifying current MPs and past MPs separately. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge. People elected MPs in Ireland from 1801 are Irish MPs elected to the United Kingdom parliament. They were not British MPs. Westminister was the parliament of the UK of Great Britain and Ireland. While English/Scottish/Welsh MPs can be labelled as British, this is not possible for MPs elected in Ireland. They were born in Ireland, socialised in Ireland and (most) described themselves as Irish. Whatever the case, an Irish category would feature as a subcategory of the categories British MPs and Irish politicians. --Damac 13:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is ignoring the fact that one can be both British and Irish, just as one can be both British and English .. etc. --Mal 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the merits of that argument. MPs of Sinn Fein are British MPs, but would thoroughly object to being called "British". At any rate, these categories are merely sub-categories, not replacements. The four-fold country divide in the Commons makes perfect sense, especially in the context of the West Lothian question, and are besides not alternatives to the British MPs category, but merely subcategories. If MPs were sorted by nationality, then I'd be against it, but by country constituency makes perfect sense, and I'm not sure I understand why anyone would oppose such a sensible thing. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether Sinn Féin like it or not, they are still British MPs. What you have described is their particular viewpoint, but an encyclopedia should deal in the facts. Considering that Sinn Féin (and also the Workers' Party) also campaign for election in the Republic of Ireland, they should be categorised additionally and separately as MPs of the RoI, if they aren't already. --Mal 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The may object, but in normal English usage "British" is the adjective for the UK. If these categories aren't merged I will start categories by party to reduce the clear bias towards nationalist priorities that this system creates, but I really don't want to do that. Bhoeble 14:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategories by party also seems very obvious, desirable and useful, and I am very surprised that these have not been started long ago. --Mais oui! 14:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't done because all politicians are classified by party. That was a good straightforward system: classification by party and classification by role. What we have now is a (biased) hideous mess by comparison and I fear it will get worse with further subcategorisation. But it is a systemic failing of Wikipedia that things like categorisation tend to be taken too far and it is a lot harder to reverse excess than to commit it. Bhoeble 23:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge, especially for Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Ireland constituencies to Category:British MPs. Westminister is the parliament of the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. British MPs come from Britain, United Kingdom MPs come from the United Kingdom. Britain and United Kingdom are not synonymous.--Damac 14:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The given nationality of everyone from the United Kingdom is British. British MPs do not only come from the island of Britain. --Mal 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said they are, but British is the adjective for the UK. The English language is full of irregularties. Bhoeble 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect Bhoeble, Damac said this very thing above my comment to him: "British MPs come from Britain" --Mal 09:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there are categories and subcategories for Category:British_people, even though they all hold the same passports. Why should this category on MPs be any different?--Damac 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are all members of one institution and the category is for that institution. It is not an occupational category. Bhoeble 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could eaisly find a different category system:
  • Oppose Merge British MPs is far too woolly a cat name and potentially vast; division by party will be as arbitrary and is workable only for a minority of all MPs; division by country seems clear-cut by comparison. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean by saying division by party is arbitary. Are you in any doubt which party say, Margaret Thatcher belonged to? Do you think there will be heated disagreements about the party affliation of Harold Wilson? Bhoeble 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Starting at A in Category:British MPs, what party did James Abercromby, 1st Baron Dunfermline belong to, or William Adam (MP), or Joseph Addison, and what would your source be ? Which country the constituency they sat for was in is, on the other hand, verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, bring back Category:British MPs. The point of categories is to bring similar people together. This defeats that. Why send Enoch Powell×2 or Ramsay MacDonald×3 all over the place? --Henrygb 16:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... Category:British MPs never went anywhere! Please note that these four new categories are all subcategories of Category:British MPs (and they all have been from their very start). --Mais oui! 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge and rename as per Kingboyk and others. As Mais Oui pointed out to me, there is no need to delete these new categories, nor to undermine the work done on them. Categories are very useful for research purposes - they help to improve the encyclopedia. There is no reason why these cats cannot co-exist with other categories that have been suggested. --Mal 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are these particular categories useful. I think they are disruptive and misleading. Bhoeble 23:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way are they "disruptive"? Similarly, in what way are they "misleading"? --Mal 09:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge The category restructuring is a sensible start but needs to go further. Oppose renaming to "English MPs", "Northern Irish MPs" etc which would be confusing. OK, the current names are long, but they are accurate. British MPs should be renamed to United Kingdom Members of Parliament then sub-categorised into current and former, each of which should be sub-categorised into the four constituency components. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? No-one seems to have given a single reason why it is worthwhile to subdivide members of the unitary parliament of the United Kingdom into groups dependent on which of the "home nations" their constituency is based in. Valiantis 19:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. The new categories are clumsily named, and this unlateral move short-circuits an ongoing discussion on Category talk:British MPs. As per the discussion there, I am in favour of sub-categorisation, but not in this way. --BrownHairedGirl 16:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge These categories are just gowing to grow and grow. It makes perfect sense to at least subdivide the British MPs category. There are over 100 articles in the Scottish section alone. The titles are long, but they are accurate. An over-category of British MPs is fine, but there's no reason to delete these developed categories. Canaen 07:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not unreasonable to subdivide the cat; the issue is the way it has been subdivided which I consider supports a POV. If the idea is to have reasonably sized cats then a split into former and current MPs should be the starting point. If the 650 or so MPs this would leave in the current cat is too big (and this is in fact the debatable - these is no requirement to split cats just because they fill more than one page), then splitting them on English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish lines does not address the problem as the vast majority of current MPs come from England. If they are split on geographical lines for reasons of cat size only then one might more logically divide them into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, North East England, North West England, Yorkshire and the Humber, West Midlands, East Midlands, South West England, South East England, East of England and Greater London. This would create subcats of roughly equal size and emphasise that the division is essentially geographical and not the POV national-political division which the current split implies. (This is not my preferred option, I think a current MPs cat of circa 650 members is entirely reasonable). As for the "development" of the cats, they were only created on 9 April, as I reported in my intial proposal, they are well populated as the creator spent a lot of time populating them. This was the unilateral action of one individual, however well-intentioned, and does not reflect the discussions that have taken place on this issue in Category talk:British MPs. Valiantis 14:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything POV; you'll need to explain that. Because you perceive these innocent cats to be POV, my instinct is that you yourself are POV, and take some kind of ideological offense to them. I'm sorry if that's the case, but the cats are totally neutral, and are the most reasonable way of sub-categorizing anything under a UK cat. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- whilst both Scotland and England have always had seperate constituencies, and obviously Ireland and Northern Ireland have; has there been any times when a constituency was in both England and Wales? Astrotrain 17:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Calgacus I believe I explained why I consider these POV in my initial proposal (which is one of the two main reasons I nominated these, the other being that they were created without regard to an ongoing attempt to reach consensus on the best way to subcat this area). I will however state this at more length. The Parliament of the United Kingdom is a unitary body; people are not elected on the basis of which "home nation" they are from. If this cat scheme is a purely geographic division to make category sizes more manageable then it fails miserably as the vast majority (529 out of 646) of constituencies in the UK are in England and the English cat will consequently still be unwieldy. There is, however, nothing inherently "neutral" about emphasising the division of the UK into England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. If you believe there is, then you appear to have a poor grasp of British cultural politics. Both dividing UK cats into separate subcats for E,S, NI & W and not dividing UK cats could be perceived as POV. The only reasonable basis for proceeding therefore is to examine whether the division of the UK is germane to the subject matter in hand. So, for instance, local government in the UK is organised differently in the four "home nations" and the cats relating to this are rightly subdivided into subcats by home nation. Parliament is a unitary organisation, so such a division is not germane and thus implies a POV about the relationship between the union and the nations, whether this was the intention of the category's creator or not. You will note, BTW, that unlike your attack on my motives, I have already stated my assumption of good faith on the part of the person who created the category. FWIW, I think my "voting" on CFD demonstrates that I have supported subcategorisation by home nation when germane and opposed it when not germane to the subject matter. Valiantis 16:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was "questioning your motives" because in general my experience tells me that most people who bandy around the tag POV when it is not obvious are themselves "POV", being influenced by some kind of emotional sensitivy of some kind stemming from their ideological inclinations. But, Valiantis, don't get offended, I'm not saying you are of this type. If categories are geographical, the divisions Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland make sense, it just remains to recategorize England in equivalent sized divisions. Road Wizard summed it up really, and I'm afraid I don't buy the idea that the civil servants who created that webpage were POV pushing. There are a number of much more obvious and likely conclusions than that. Ultimately, the United Kingdom consists of three constituent nations and one constituent territory, and everything about the UK will always be categorized according to that. This is just logic, it ain't POV pushing. This seems to be the ultimate flaw in your case. On the other hand, suggesting the UK's historical and constitutional national divisions should be ignored seems more counter-intuitive and reeks more of POV pushing that the opposite. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clearly it's not "logic" to divide all UK categories into 4 subcats for E,S,W & NI; there is nothing logical about national boundaries. As I said, to do this is political and not to do so is also political which is why I support division into home nation subcats or not dependent on the subject-matter. Your comments imply that you believe it is appropriate to divide all UK cats into 4 subcats. This is clearly at odds with general WP practice with regard to other countries (all German subcats are not automatically divided by Bundesland, Belgian cats are not automatically divided into Flemish and Walloon subcats etc.) which is a precedent that should be taken into account. (This practice itself is of course a POV which supports the sovereign state over other ways of dividing up humanity; however, there has to be some method and this is the one WP uses). There does however appear to be a trend currently that all UK cats are being divided on home nations grounds whether this is germane to the subject-matter or not. This action appears to be the work of a small number of editors and to be proceeding without discussion (as is the case with the cats under discussion here). Once created such cats tend to stay as it only takes one person to create a cat but it takes a supermajority of all those voicing an opinion to delete it. It seems to me that it is the lack of discussion - particularly when it involves ignoring a discussion that is ongoing as applies here - that it particularly galling. Valiantis 00:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - would a temporal categorization be sounder? It would be NPOV (and practically helpful) to categorize MPs by which parliaments they sat in, would it not? Some MPs sat in a lot of parliaments so there is the risk of category clutter, but by and large it seems a more elegant solution. Each subcategory would be of very similar - and navigable -size, and MPs would be sorted with their contemporaries. TheGrappler 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The UK Parliament itself breaks its current membership down into several categories. MPs by Constituency sorted Alphabetically; MPs by Counties (but first split into England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland); MPs by Gender & MPs by Party. As the Parliament sets these categories itself, any wiki categorisation based on them would have to be NPOV. Road Wizard 22:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid as a general rule it doesn't follow that because institution X states something it is therefore NPOV. Also, the division you state is by "county and unitary authority" not explicitly by home nation; the lists appear to be broken down into the home nations but in fact they are broken into six lists: - London Boroughs, English shire counties, English metropolitan districts, Scottish unitary authorities, Welsh unitary authorities and NI districts i.e. into the six different sorts of local authority in the UK.
  • Oppose merge Very useful subdivision of a very large category. SP-KP 01:05, 17 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:Female Digimon 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 19:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and inappropriate. Circeus 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - All Digimon have both genders. Plau 15:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While some digimon display female characteristics Digimon are generally considered genderless, and a digimon type is essentially a species anyway so as Plau said, there could conceivable be multiple genders, therefore category is meaningless. Shiroi Hane 02:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Digimon are genderless, as above. Jedi Amara 17:08, 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:Halo 2 Weapons 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 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category only contains three articles, all of which are lists of weapons. It's doubtful that the individual weapons should be broken out into separate articles any time soon, so the three lists could just be put in Category:Halo 2 and Category:Computer and video game weapons. — TKD::Talk 14:54, 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.

Category:Buildings duplicated at Legoland, Windsor 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 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, many in category are not buildings. Better suited to a single list article JBellis 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not an important attribute of the buildings. Bhoeble 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. mattbr30 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mention in the Legoland Windsor article. --kingboyk 18:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify in the [Legoland Windsor]] article. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but mention in both the [Legoland Windsor]] article and the articles for the buildings themselves. SP-KP 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Mais oui! 03:35, 17 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:Scottish MPs to Category:Members of the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament 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 discussion already completed. - EurekaLott 13:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing existing CfR process from 30 March (has there been a vote elsewhere I can't find?). I support this change for consitency with Category:Members of the pre-1707 English Parliament and to avoid confusion with current UK MPs for Scottish constituencies. Mtiedemann 11:12, 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.

Australian Rules 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. - TexasAndroid 15:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'Australian Rules' is incorrect capitalisation. Remy B 10:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Australian Rules coaches and Category:Australian Rules footballers are also now tagged for renaming, that is the removal of the capital Rs. Bhoeble 14:25, 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:People who died from smoking 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 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An empty category, and one whose criteria is difficult to judge. Better to use the subcategories of category:Cancer deaths.--Mike Selinker 08:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete & use cancer cats. There's no way to be sure that smoking was the cause of any individual's death. ×Meegs 08:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sufficiently verifiable. Bhoeble 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 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:Villages of Cumbria 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 15:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to Category:Villages in Cumbria

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:São Paulo Athletic Club players 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 15:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to Category:São Paulo Futebol Clube players

  • Merge per nom. Bhoeble 15:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator, though this is getting to the point where we say "use English 'translation' over original name". James F. (talk) 10:58, 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:Fires to Category:Historic fires 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 15:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming this category adds relevance and makes the topic more interesting. All articles about fires at Wikipedia should have historical significance. GilliamJF 05:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename as nom GilliamJF 05:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Since events included in the category are notable, the modifier adds nothing meaningful to the name. The reverse renaming took place in September. - EurekaLott 18:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per EurekaLott. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per EurekaLott. Bhoeble 14:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The nominator rightly states "All articles about fires at Wikipedia should have historical significance". Therefore the word "historical" is understood anyway. Same applies to all WP cats. Valiantis 15:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take no action. Let AfD decide which ones are of historical significance. — Apr. 12, '06 [13:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>
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:Russian counter-revolution people to Category:Russian counter-revolutionaries 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 15:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(a) shorter (shock horror); (b) not all members of this category are persons. Cf also Category:Counter-revolutionaries. David Kernow 05:36, 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.

Category:Places of worship in Isreal 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant, spelling counts -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 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.

Category:Spanish ice hockey 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 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.

Category:USYers 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 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.

Category:Utah Grizzlies (1995-2005) players 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by User:Ccwaters -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 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.

Category:Victims of the Night of the Long Knives 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 15:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Victims of The Night of the Long Knives

blanked by its creator -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 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.

Category:West Adelaide Soccer Club players 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 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blanked by User:Cursive -- ProveIt (talk) 05:02, 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.

Category:Elections in the European Union and Category:European Parliament results 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 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these categories was previously listed in Category:Elections by country which was POV because the EU is not a country. It should be renamed Category:European Parliament elections, which describes its purpose accurately. However Category:European Parliament results also exists and I can't see that it is needed as well as the Category:European Parliament elections so it should be merged into Category:European Parliament elections as well. Some of the content will need to be moved, but that is the case anyway. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename/merge per nom. David Kernow 05:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/merge per nom. Bhoeble 15:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/merge both to "Europenan Parliament elections results"; "European Parliament results" sounds like it could refer to the divisions and their outcomes. James F. (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both to Category:European Parliament elections per nom. Wikipedia's articles about elections are more than just lists of results, they also (hopefully) cover the election campaign and significance of the election. Sumahoy 23:23, 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:Olympics by sports federation 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 15:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category of the category listed below and three categories that were listed yesterday. Grouping one or two sports by the names of bodies that most people have probably never heard of just isn't helpful. The Olympics articles are already grouped by sport, which the appropriate thing to do. Golfcam 03:07, 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.

Category:FIS at the Olympics 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 19:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination makes a set with the other three listed below. Grouping one or two sports by the names of bodies that most people have probably never heard of just isn't helpful. The Olympics articles are already grouped by sport, which the appropriate thing to do. Golfcam 03:05, 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.

Category:Age of Mythology characters 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 15:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one page in this category, and the category won't get bigger. ЄИЄЯפЇЄ 02:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Support Opps, I meant Delete This is from back when each individual AoM character had an article. However, they have been merged into a parent article, making this category redundant. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CalJW 04:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 15:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 10:58, 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:Bridgetown buildings 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 15:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made redundant by Category:Buildings and structures in Bridgetown, the correctly named category -- Francs2000   01:42, 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_9&oldid=1132344218"