Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 24

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< July 23 July 25 >

July 24 edit

Category:Kidz Bop songs edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being covered on a Kidz Bop album does not seem like a notable enough characteristic to deserve a category. Also, it has already been listified at List of songs on the Kidz Bop albums. --musicpvm 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is part of the transition of Singles by artist, which in a June 28 nomination converted a category called "category:Songs covered by the Kidz Bop kids" to this title. I don't care whether it stays or goes, though, since the Kidz Bop kids doesn't quite meet my fuzzy definition of an "artist." But maybe others might be more generous.--Mike Selinker 01:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 11:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Landolitan 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili talk 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Companies of Tasmania to Companies based in Tasmania edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Companies based in Tasmania --Kbdank71 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Companies are registered in Australia and not Australian states or territories. This category name is misleading. -- Longhair 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Tim4christ17 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong don't rename - we aren't talking about a legal definition here. It's fairly obvious to the non-legally informed user that where a company is from is where they are based, not where they are registered. (JROBBO 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: There is no such thing as a Company of Tasmania. All Australian companies are Companies of Australia, and are therefore based in their relevant state if one wishes to further categorise in this way. The proposal is to rename, not delete. -- Longhair 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per "X in country" standard. JROBBO, this is not proposed for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the standard for companies, either companies by country or companies by locality. Choalbaton 11:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Choalbaton 11:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Osomec 19:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Is also consistent with categories for "Charities based in X". Agent 86 21:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename consistent with other sub-national by company categories such as Category:Companies based in Alabama. Kurieeto 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Chuq 03:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People with Power in Canada edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with Power in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, Category is too vague and subject to interpretation. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per JChap. One look at the criterion tells that it is far too vague. Even tighted up it would be far too broad. There is no need for such a category. Agent 86 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category:Canadian civil servants is sufficient. --Usgnus 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Social power is way too vague a criteria for categorization, and if I want to know who has electricity in Canada, I have WAY too much time on my hands. --tjstrf 01:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Power" could mean almost anything. --Tim4christ17 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriately vague, too many philosophical and POV issues ("What is power?"). --Kinu t/c 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category was set up as part of one editor's crusade against the regional government structure in Ontario, and the Peel region in particular. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --DarkAudit 04:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cloachland 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- can't be separated from POV; useless --Gary Will 21:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary, POV. Delete. Bearcat 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above comments. —GrantNeufeld 03:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People with power is way too vague. -Royalguard11Talk 04:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too vague. --BrownHairedGirl 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:The Rothschilds edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Rothschilds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Rothschild family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename, in line with the emerging standard for families. Sumahoy 22:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cities and towns in Portugal edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, This category is not needed and it only contains one subcategory (and no articles). There is an official list of Portuguese cities and therefore Category:Cities in Portugal and Category:Towns in Portugal are separate. Hawkestone 21:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Canadian city demonyms edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all (and I will create {{category redirect}}s per ProveIt as happened with the US demonyms referred to). --RobertG ♬ talk 14:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the strong consensus to rename American city demonyms in previous discussions including Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 14#More demonyms, the following should be renamed for the same reasons: to be consistent with other city categories and to avoid ambiguity.

  • Support per nom. Ardenn 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Kurieeto 21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Note typo in Ottawa. --Usgnus 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent idea. Agent 86 21:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Hawkestone 21:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all A few of these I couldn't even guess at. Sumahoy 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral But shouldn't you also include Category:Haligonians if you are going to do this. Luigizanasi 06:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. - Darwinek 13:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Mereda 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although I do not consider the "strong consensus to rename American city demonyms" as a good reason to make any changes to Canadian categories, I must agree with Sumahoy that some of the existing names are bordering on the ridiculous. --Skeezix1000 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching from "People from X" to "X-demonym" arose from a CFD consensus in the first place, didn't it? Colour me neutral, as long as this resolves one way or the other, and doesn't come back again in six months when somebody decides they want the demonyms again. Bearcat 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please note that Labrador is not a city. I don't know if this changes anything but it shouldn't be under a "city demonyms" renaming nom. BoojiBoy 01:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I found it later and added it as it's a Canadian region. Although it's not a city, it should still be renamed for consistency. --musicpvm 04:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. --Fang Aili talk 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename SilentRage 03:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all the demonyms. Otherwise they will just be recreated. -- ProveIt (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename them all Kingjamie 20:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:ELDR to Category:European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the abreviation. Sorry it's so long. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Famous people named O'Keefe edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a good idea. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A disambig page ought to suffice, if even necessary. Agent 86 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agent 86. Also note that of the only two peope in this category, only one of them even spells it this way! --Icarus (Hi!) 21:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Cswrye 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a wise use of categories. Osomec 19:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really an anti-category. Postdlf 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary overcategorization. Bearcat 00:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- bad precedent. - Longhair 00:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: bad precedent, as per Longhair. --BrownHairedGirl 13:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:WCAU edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:WCAU-TV. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge. The actual call sign appears to be WCAU so that is where the cat should be. There is no need for a redirect. The category name should match the main article name. Vegaswikian 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, for the love of...categories for individual TV stations now? I'd consider this a delete, personally, with the proviso that most local TV personalities (which is what predominantly populates this category) don't merit articles either. I realize I'm probably gonna lose that fight, but my vote stands. Bearcat 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wisconsin local politicians edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wisconsin local politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, Empty cat, replaced by more specific cats as discussed here. BaronLarf 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Americans who grew Hemp before 1900 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Americans who grew Hemp before 1900 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, Orphan category just created. Confusing inclusion criteria, includes 9 people, a farmhouse and a ship replica. Doesn't really seem like a useful or productive category... what's next, Canadians who grew Turnups before 1975? Also possibly indirectly POV... since why else would someone be pointing out this little factoid. W.marsh 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I made a mistake when I posted the Mayflower II and the Plantation they are now gone, and considering the number of famous Americans who grew what is now an illegal substance it does matter. grazon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazon (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. A bit too bizarre for me.--Mike Selinker 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "bizarre" is not a reason. grazon 17:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Fine. It's a bad category because a) it's a nearly useless piece of trivia, b) it's dated to an arbitrary point, c) it's very hard to verify, d) it will lead to even more trivial crop-based categories, and e) it's miscapitalized.--Mike Selinker 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment you make some good points Mike but I don't think any of the founding fathers grew a now illegal crop other than hemp. grazon 17:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Sure, but you're narrowcasting to your understanding of the category. The category itself doesn't make any claims about illegality, or being a founding father, or even that it's a crop. So it can lead to "Canadians who grew turnips before 1975" because its wording encourages that type of category to be created. In my opinion, it's a "pathogen category"—if you leave it alone, it will multiply and kill the host.--Mike Selinker 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsensical, per nom. --Pcj 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete useless JPotter 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historical value, and AFAIK 1900 is useful b/c it's the year that many uses of hemp were banned in the US in order to restrict the cannabis variety. If that's not true, then Rename to whatever year hemp was banned.--M@rēino 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Banned_in_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marijuana_Tax_Act

I think there were restrictions and state laws before the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. grazon 17:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete useless categorie that cannot possibly serve any encyclopaedic purpose and is unlikely to be used by anyone in a meaningful way.--Kalsermar 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is probably some POV here. The category is insignificant at best. Choalbaton 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fine as a list, lousy as a category. -- Samuel Wantman 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the hemp article, growing hemp is not illegal in the USA. --Usgnus 22:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a good category. --Cswrye 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless category, and hemp doesn't necessarily mean marijuana to begin with. --tjstrf 06:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The bit of trivia captured by this category is better captured, if at all, in a section in the Hemp article. Kayaker 23:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Listify, or move to appropriate article. Rare and offbeat enough that a category is far less helpful, IMO, than a list or a portion of an article. If I saw someone in a category like this, I'd want further context. --zenohockey 01:47, 2 August 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:Censored Singles edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is very ambiguous. It just states "This category links music singles which have been censored." That would include ever song that contains a profanity, so I don't see how such a category would be useful. Currently, the only articles it includes are Frankie Goes to Hollywood which is a group (not a single) and the Censorship of music article. --musicpvm 16:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.--Mike Selinker 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note the difference between the nominated cat and Category:Singles banned by the BBC, which says WHO did the banning. This means (1) easier to verify (2) avoid problem of governments like North Korea's that censor everything, and (3) avoid equating real censorship by powerful bodies like the BBC with church groups/public action committees and such that try to censor things, but don't actually have the power to enforce it. --M@rēino 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mareino and Musicpvm. This is less useful and has many more problems than the troublesome Category:Banned books. ×Meegs 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Cswrye 02:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I am a newbie and I created the category (as is mentioned in the talk page) because I wanted to be able to find censored songs easily and I thought others might also. I think they tell us interesting things about what society values over time. The Censorship of music article only provides a few examples and using the search tool didn't provide much useful information. I would be happy to see the category amended to be more specific, such as censored for political reasons in the USA. I hear there is a policy Please do not bite the newcomers that encourages looking for merit in new ideas. How could this category be amended rather than deleted? I intend to add things to it as I find them through research. --Missjeanie 04:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone's trying to bite you, Missjeanie. I came up with a few reasons why the category is not useful, but that certainly doesn't mean that I think you are not a useful member of the Wikipedia team, or that you were stupid to try to create the category. As plenty of regulars on this page can tell you, I have created some genuinely stupid categories in my time here, so if I'm saying that you aren't stupid, I should know, right? ;) Like I suggested above, if you want to create a category for songs that some particular US government agency (like the FCC) has banned, you can do that. It's just that right now, this category is way too vague. --M@rēino 13:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comment accompanying Mareino's vote. Kayaker 23:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per Mareino's comments. This category is just too amorphous. --BrownHairedGirl 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:English lyric songs with spanish titles edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Multilingual songs --Kbdank71 16:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trivial characteristic and doesn't deserve its own category. --musicpvm 16:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Newshounds characters edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the entries for this category have been deleted, so there is not reason for this category to exist anymore. ISD 16:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Heraldo Filipino edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Over-categorization. --Howard the Duck 13:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bands with only one constant member edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bands with only one constant member (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

Delete, Over-categorization... listify. LimoWreck 13:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Don't listify. Not useful. Carina22 16:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • well, some bands seem a vehicle for one central artist (eg. King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Nine Inch Nails, etc...), that's why I added a listify suggestion, to collect some notable trivia that doesn't need to pollute te articles categories however ;-) --LimoWreck 17:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need a category for what is essentially useless indiscriminate trivia. Agent 86 17:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I actually kind of like this one. It made me want to add The Pretenders, for example. It seems to be documenting some weird state between band and singer that's very intriguing to me. Could be a list, could be a category, but regardless it seems useful.--Mike Selinker 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in this set too, and I can tell you for sure that the cat is extremely underpopulated right now. Nevertheless, it's not the best cat. A list would be ok, allowing that one member to be named along with dates. Bands don't always have the clearest membership histories, especially early on and during dry spells. There's also this cat's inevitable sibling, bands with zero constant members. ×Meegs 20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I guess this category is not all that far from The New Main Street Singers. OK, listify (or something), but also delete.--Mike Selinker 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the category. I have no problem with it being deleted and turned into a list but I really do think it should stay. I don't see how it's not useful. I wouldn't want it to get out of hand with categories for bands with 2 constant members or bands with 3 constant members but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I would also support categories for 0 and all origional members always. I might be hurting my own case by saying that but I think 0, 1, and all are more important to our number system than 2 or 3. The Secretary of Funk 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. This is a misuse of categories, the members are too disparate. It's trivia. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. This is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia can beat other encyclopedias at, so I think it's a great article candidate. The problem with making it a category, though, is that this information is now tagged to the bottom of every one of those band's articles. Far better to work it into the text, like "Ringo has been the only constant over the long history of Ringo Starr's All Star Band," with a link to the list of bands with only one constant member mid-text. --M@rēino 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. Postdlf 21:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though just make sure it's deleted whether or not anyone bothers to make a list first. Postdlf 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Listify is fine too. Kayaker 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • It is an interesting criterion of comparison between bands, but it's also a fairly trivial and non-encyclopedic one. I'd listify rather than deleting, personally. Bearcat 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Landolitan 16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listify if you like, but this is not encyclopedic, it is just ridiculous. --DreamsReign 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not ridiculous. Some of the bands like Yes and Deep Purple only have one constant member by coinsidence but most of the bands are outlets for one person and would not exist if not for that one person. It is a type of band, the type of band you see refered to ask "[only constant members name] and company" in music press. The Secretary of Funk 20:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an impartial music fan who stumbled onto the category listing, I found it very cool, useful, interesting and informative. Anazgnos 17:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cjosefy 00:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. or in the worste case, listify. It's not merely trivia or ridicolous info, it's a useful tool to compare different line-ups in similar scenes, I do not agree that it is not enciclopedic.--Doktor Who 00:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a useful and interesting category. I also created the article List of bands with one consistent member before this category appeared. --HisSpaceResearch 18:57, 2 August 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:Amon Amarth Albums to Category:Amon Amarth albums edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:CFDS. — xaosflux Talk 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original WP:CFDS nominator: ProveIt (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't rename There really is NO need to rename it becuase of a capital. I think this one shouldn't even be listened to! Hole in the wall 16:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename spelling per nom. — xaosflux Talk 04:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for capitalization. Luna Santin 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for capitalization. Carina22 16:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename for case fix. --musicpvm 16:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as above.--Mike Selinker 17:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the other members of Category:Albums by artist -- ProveIt (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as above. --Dhartung | Talk 04:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. Yes, there is a reason to rename it because of a capital; that reason is called "proper English". Bearcat 00:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Lists of Fish Markets edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Fish Markets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fish markets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename, The items in this category are not lists, they are articles about fish markets. Also, capitalization fix. --dm (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Huddersfield Town A.F.C. edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename main cat and two sub-cats. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:35, 2 August 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:Royal palaces in Sweden edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:40, 2 August 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:NBDL teams edit

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:40, 2 August 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_July_24&oldid=1144849174"