Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 11

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< June 10 June 12 >

June 11 edit

Category:United States Senate election results by state to Category:United States Senate elections by state 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. Vegaswikian 05:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match Category:United States House of Representatives elections by state. —Markles 10:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Luna Santin 10:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong (and speedy) Support - the articles have more than just results, but a fuller description of the rcae. -- Sholom 16:42, 13 June 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 in visual arts to Category:Visual arts occupations 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. Vegaswikian 05:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is about what people do in the arts, their occupations, only. This change is consistent with the project discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Categorization. Clubmarx 22:20, 11 June 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:Art and design workers to Category:Arts occupations 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. Vegaswikian 05:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art and design workers already encompasses more than the visual arts and there is a need for an occupations category for the entire category of the arts. This change is consistent with the project discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Categorization. Clubmarx 22:15, 11 June 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:Pacific Rim Usa 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. Vegaswikian 05:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a category -- ProveIt (talk) 22:10, 11 June 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:Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 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. Conscious 16:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not used much and is too broad. Media, entertainment, and sports subcats are already listed directly under Category:Occupations. Category:Advertising people is already in 'Advertising. This change is consistent with the project discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Categorization. Clubmarx 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and recategorize population in separate categories respectively (cf above proposals). Nice one, Clubmarx!  David Kernow 22:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. - Kleinzach 23:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. ReeseM 01:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ridiculous grouping. HAM   17:50, 15 June 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.

Oz characters (still more) edit

Category:Prisoners of Oz to Category:Prisoners of Oz (TV series) edit
Category:Staff Members of Oz to Category:Staff members of Oz (TV series) edit
Category:Visitors to Oz to Category:Visitors to Oz (TV series) 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 all. Vegaswikian 05:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After cleaning out the previously-deleted categories listed below, the remaining categories for Oz characters still need various capitalization and disambiguation fixes. - EurekaLott 21:02, 11 June 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:NGA Hooters Tour Events to Category:NGA Hooters Tour events 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. Vegaswikian 05:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 20:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower-casing. Twittenham 15:45, 11 June 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:Atlas Shrugged 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. Conscious 16:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's only two articles in this category. Previously, several fancruft articles were in it, but they were all deleted and/or merged into the other two remaining articles. There isn't much likelihood that more articles will be added to this category. -- LGagnon 19:01, 11 June 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:Animals and wildlife in Somerset 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, no consensus to merge. Conscious 16:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to bite the newcomers, and especially not a promising one like Trident13, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Perhaps a reframing/renaming/merging might be better than deletion, but as it stands currently, not appropriate IMO. SP-KP 18:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a solution - if we adopt it, not all articles should transfer to it though - Orchardleigh Lake isn't really a visitor attraction as such SP-KP 22:43, 11 June 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 Veterans 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. Vegaswikian 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally proposed for speedy renaming by Kalkin 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No reason for it to exist other than propaganda. An encyclopedia needs to show a more sophistication than making a division of people into "pro" and "anti" anything. Chicheley 18:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the decision is made to keep, it should be renamed to "Veterans opposed to the Iraq War" for clarity. -- Usgnus 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. ×Meegs 06:23, 12 June 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.

Oz categories (again) 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 merge as recreation of deleted content. - EurekaLott 20:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user has recreated these, despite a vote to delete, and then a deletion review. I voted to keep these originally, but the recreation of them is way uncool. Below are the original requests from Usgnus, but I would suggest they deserve a Speedy merge back into category:Prisoners of Oz and Category:Staff Members of Oz (recapitalized to "members").--Mike Selinker 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge -- Usgnus 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge and Burninate with extreme prejudice. BoojiBoy 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If these were already deleted, aren't they covered for speedy deletion under rule G4: Previously deleted? If so, just list them at speedy deletion. Vegaswikian 20:25, 11 June 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:Teachers to Category:Schoolteachers 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 --Cyde↔Weys 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is mainly used for schoolteachers, and it makes sense to make that explicit as there is room for confusion, and if it is not restricted it is just a confusing dupicate of category:Educators. This is made more necessary by the fact that in some countries the distinction between teachers and professors/academics is not as clear cut as it in the English-speaking world, which means that the purpose of this category can get lost in translation Chicheley 17:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename as above. Chicheley 17:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the other "teacher" related categories use "schoolteacher". The article is Teacher. -- Usgnus 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So rename them all. ReeseM 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep all. -- Usgnus 17:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Please don't count these two keeps separately. ReeseM 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I will list the others. ReeseM 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now done. The Venezeulan category was in category:Educators by nationality, but category:teachers is only one of several broad subcategories of Category:Educators. That illustrates one of the problems with the existing name that Chicheley mentioned. "Teacher" is more common in everyday use of course, but it is usually clear from the context that it is serving as an abbrevation for "Schoolteacher". In Wikipedia that context is largely absent. ReeseM 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all -- the article Teacher was correctly named. Nobody is called "Schoolteacher" as a title. There's no problem with loss in translation, as the category has a main article with a clear definition. --William Allen Simpson 03:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That assumes that everyone reads the article before using the categories, which isn't very likely. Osomec 16:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as nominated. The article Teacher should be replaced with separate articles called "Schoolteacher" and "Educator". Osomec 16:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. The proposed names are clearer and hardly too long. Calsicol 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all This is a good idea. Ramseystreet 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename all Schoolteacher is clearer and more accurate and has no significant drawbacks. Athenaeum 16:16, 13 June 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:Congressional districts of the District of Columbia 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. Conscious 16:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Empty. Redundant of Category:Congressional districts of District of Columbia. —Markles 15:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse merge as "District" here follows a preposition rather than (say) a comma...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and reverse merge -- also noting that Markles just created the new category and moved the articles, then came here for a deletion of the original. That's out of process. --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge as above. Osomec 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and also delete Category:Congressional districts of District of Columbia. By definition there are no congressional districts in DC.--M@rēino 17:19, 19 June 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:Video Game Series 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 Meerge. Vegaswikian 05:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant of Category:Computer and video game franchises. Also uses wrong capitalization. Thunderbrand 15:03, 11 June 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:Supermodels to Category:Models 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. Vegaswikian 05:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per the category for deletion nomination for Category:Omega models, and discussion at Talk:Cindy Crawford and Category talk:Supermodels, "Supermodels" is not an encyclopedic term for categorising. It is not a "real" profession, and the term itself is a media creation. It's also highly POV, because who exactly decides when a particular model extends his or her career from that of a mere model to a "supermodel"? I understand the term denotes exceptional earning power or visibility within the industry, but categories should not be based on levels of success, especially when the criteria for inclusion on such a list is highly subjective - the particular noteworthy, unique achievements of the individual should be discussed in their article, rather than using a colloquial term to try to group all of them under one elite category. The current category of "Models" is all but empty, but seems to me to be a more logical and encyclopedic place to list these people, as it uses the correct name of their profession. Rossrs 14:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I nominated for a merge, but I'm happy with delete. Rossrs 11:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' No need to merge as I checked several and they are already in the by-nationality categories. Twittenham 15:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Twittenham ReeseM 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Smerus 10:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-NPOV. Afonso Silva 12:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV hypester term. Osomec 16:47, 12 June 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:Peruvian Cultures to Indigenous culture of Peru edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to category:Indigenous peoples of Peru. Vegaswikian 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better description of category, capitalization. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:49, 11 June 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:Playboy Interview subjects 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. Vegaswikian 05:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having been interviewed for Playboy is not really a defining characteristic of Paul Newman or Billy Wilder or any of these other people. Celebrities get interviewed by hundreds of publications in their lifetimes, which makes this a pretty bad precedent. JW 11:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I think this would be better as a list. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and in agreement with User:ProveIt's suggestion. Rossrs 15:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Twittenham 15:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/delete per above. David Kernow 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Centrx→talk 04:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just saw this category on The Beatles and my reaction of "wtf?!" was only tempered by seeing it up for deletion. Certainly a categorisation too far. --kingboyk 12:46, 16 June 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:Fiction about ancient Egypt edit

and

Category:Fictional works related to ancient Egypt 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 both to Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction. Vegaswikian 05:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename. These two populated categories appear to have a duplicate scope, and should at least be merged. Neither name however seems particulary standard (and for consistency with other usage it should be Ancient Egypt and not ancient Egypt )- I would further propose that both be replaced and renamed by something like Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction. cjllw | TALK 10:37, 11 June 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:Professional Sports Associations 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 to Category:Sports organisations. Vegaswikian 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Category:Sports organisations are professional -- ProveIt (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, at least, most of the notable ones will be; the number of notable sporting organizations probably doesn't require a division of that nature. That said, is "sports" or "sporting" the preferred use, here? And without revealing myself as both a boorish American and a new editor, is there any precedent about American/British spellings (organisation/organization)? I doubt that last bit's important, but if it is, I thought I should point it out. Luna Santin 10:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the deal re U.S./other English spelling is to accept whatever you find being used. See "National varities of English" in the WP:MoS. Regards, David Kernow 11:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. A distinction which is more trouble than it is worth due to historical changes, shamateurism and semi-professionalism, and the fact that many organisations organise both professional and amateur competitions. Twittenham 15:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Osomec 16:48, 12 June 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:Boston College alumni to Category:Boston College Eagles ice hockey 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 Rename. Vegaswikian 05:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per naming conventions and discussion here. BoojiBoy 00:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. The category description even says, "This is a list of players who played College hockey for Boston College in the NCAA." The original name is misleading. Luna Santin 09:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Luna Santin. -- Usgnus 17:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Calsicol 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Dakart 02:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This category should remain for people who attended Boston College. The hockey players can be easily removed. --M@rēino 17:30, 19 June 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:WHA to Category:World Hockey Association 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. Vegaswikian 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death to abbreviations. BoojiBoy 00:22, 11 June 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_June_11&oldid=1136104458"