Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 25

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< May 24 May 26 >

May 25 edit

Alumni of Cambridge Colleges: "St." to "St" 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 per nom. Conscious 05:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, "Saint" is usually abbreviated without a full stop. The renaming would also match the parent articles St Catharine's College, Cambridge and St John's College, Cambridge. Bluap 23:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is far more that needs doing that this. I was going to say "Rename to Category:St Catharine's College, Cambridge alumni etc, as per all others", but then I had a look in the UK university categories. Some are "X alumni", some are "Alumni of X", yet more are "X Alumni" or "Former students of X". Some don't have separate categories - they're listed as part of "People associated with X" or "X people". It's a complete mess. If it wasn't for impending real-world deadlines, I'd get onto this... someone certainly needs to! Grutness...wha? 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A while back, we had a discussion on how to name Faculty/Lecturers/Professors of UK Universities, and came to the decision to use "Academics of X". In order to match this, I would recommend standardising on "Alumni of X" (a quick browse suggests that this is also the more common category name). As for "People associated with X", that's a parent category, for universities which have both an Alumni and an Academics category. One of these days, I'll get round to proposing a standardisation for the UK university categories but, in the meantime, I'm concentrating on getting a reasonable structure for the Cambridge ones. Bluap 14:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative rename to the long form, e.g. Category:Alumni of Saint Catharine's College, Cambridge. It is unambiguous, avoids any country-to-country stylistic conflicts, and alphabetizes correctly. I must have edited thousands of "St." articles to sort properly under "Saint" so far.-choster 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: in this particular case, the parent articles are in the short form (which is also the form used on the websites of the colleges concerned) Bluap 14:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't "St."/"St" recognised across the (majority of if not the whole) English-speaking world as an abbreviation for "Saint"?  When English-speaking people (other than hagiographers, I suppose) write about saints by name, do they write (say) "St[.] Paul" or "Saint Paul"?  Other than on signs outside some cathedrals, I don't recall any instances of the latter. Re sorting, append "|Saint..." after the category name. Regards, David Kernow 15:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment Digging into the history of these categories, it appears that they were originally "Former students of St X College, Cambridge" (without the full stop), and were moved to "Alumni of St. X College, Cambridge" (with the full stop) as a result of this CFD debate. The current misnaming is due to a typo made when programming the bot Bluap 14:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment According to the previous debate "Alumnus" is a term used by Cambridge University; with the regard to comments above about the standardisation of UK univerist cats, I would express scepticism that "alumnus" is used very widely in the UK. Valiantis 18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admittedly it's not the most commonplace word in the language, but in my opinion "alumnus" is well enough known to justify its use for a category title. In fact, I would think that the plural "alumni" is doubly familiar to most people. HAM   14:25, 2 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.

Aircraft by country edit

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

The result of the debate was rename to "manufactured by" form. Conscious 05:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships by country and Category:Aircraft by country should have the same naming convention. By country is used for Ships (Ex Category:Ships of Canada), but as seen below by nationality is used for Aircraft (Ex Category:Canadian aircraft). By country is more appropriate because the scopes of these categories are limited by the legal borders of countries, not by intangible concepts like nations of people.

Note: If voting against this by country naming proposal, please consider commenting regarding a potential (not proposed here) move from Category:Aircraft by country to Category:Aircraft by nationality.

--Kurieeto 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all Since it avoids some of the clumsyness of the Fooian notation. However, its a little more work to manage the sort keys. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all--Hattusili 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, per nom. altering vote pending clarification, see below.--cjllw | TALK 00:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. See below. David Kernow 01:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC), amended 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The "Ships by country" category classifies ships by the country operating them, not the country that manufactured them, which is what these aircraft categories are for. "Ships of Canada" for example, includes British and US-built ships operated by Canadians. The aircraft categories are for aircraft manufactured in a particular country, not aircraft used in or by a particular country, which is why the categories aren't called "Aircraft of Foo". JW 23:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But, as the highest level Aircraft by country category, its scope should allow for containing aircraft operated within a country that were not built in that country. Otherwise, these categories should be named for example Category:Aircraft manufactured in Canada. Kurieeto 14:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Aircraft manufactured by Country" per the above (NB "by" and not "in"). David Kernow 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the category was used for aircraft operated in a particular country the scope would be enormous, especially bearing in mind the number of countries that buy American aircraft. A successful plane like the Spitfire or the Boeing 747 would probably be in 20 or 30 categories. JW 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it was my intent to just avoid the inherent problems of the Fooian notation, not to change the meaning of the categories. JW makes a good point, in fact its even worse than he said ... if we include usage, I suspect we would find that many of the popular ones are used worldwide, in which case it is pointless to classify them by country. I prefer that either we restrict it to manufacture only, or failing that, create a category for Worldwide aircraft. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If origin of manufacture is intended, then I'd support in general a rename convention such as suggested by David above, Aircraft manufactured by <country>. However there still seem to be a couple of grey areas, such as for those manufactured by international consortia and JV's (eg Airbus)— though I s'pose that particular subcat would become something like Aircraft manufactured internationally or Aircraft manufactured by international consortia. Also, I imagine that these days a growing number of craft are actually assembled from componentry manufactured offshore, at least in part- so would (or should) "manufacture" be synonymous with "assembly" in this case? Perhaps the more literal expression of the categories' intended meaning would be Aircraft manufactured by companies or consortia headquartered in <country>.--cjllw | TALK 00:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the best thing would be to use the names as proposed, but specify it should only include aircraft strongly associated with the country for some reason. And I would expect for the ones which are used worldwide, should just be the manuafacturer. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom 216.141.226.190 16:31, 3 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:Nintendo females 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, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think sorting by sex is a useful subcategory for Nintendo characters, and if kept it should definitely be renamed “Female Nintendo characters”. WikidSmaht (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If not deleted then rename per nom. Sumahoy 21:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RedWolf 17:44, 31 May 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:Theme songs to Category:Theme music 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. Conscious 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category's primary topic article is Theme music. (Theme song is a redirect to that article). Also, the category currently contains both theme songs (as defined by the primary topic article, compositions with lyrics) and theme music (compositions with without lyrics). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:24, 25 May 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:Hospital ships of the United States edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:United States Navy hospital ships, and empty. CyrilB 21:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. May not be a duplicate, and the nominated cat follows what seems to be the convention for (<ship type>s of <country>). The question is, are there hospital ships of the U.S. which are not also ships of the U.S. navy? I dunno.--cjllw | TALK 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and permit recreation if we find any non-Navy hospital ships (Civil War, maybe?). Septentrionalis 02:35, 26 May 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:PCHA players to Category:Pacific Coast Hockey Association 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. Conscious 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations should not be used in category titles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:57, 25 May 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.

More National Hockey League cats 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. Conscious 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These cats were created after the the previous CFR request to eliminate the "NHL" abbreviation. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Osomec 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These are some weird categories. We don't usually keep track of occupations by current status, do we? The GM one should probably be rolled into Category:National Hockey League executives, and then those guys should be categorized by team. And "historical" divisions seems to contain current divisions as well, so we should lose the "Historical." And is the introduction of the Art Ross Trophy a good enough reason for a time-sensitive break in the scoring leaders category? I'm not saying it's wrong. Just weird, is all.--Mike Selinker 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Being the nimrod who came up with the GM category in the first place without checking elsewhere, I'd suggest we take this out as a category and set up something like the List of NHL head coaches page, which would do a much better job, in my opinion. Exoterrick 15:02, 26 May 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:Cancers 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 out of process Speedy deletion by Cyde (talk · contribs) --William Allen Simpson 01:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per categories nominated here. - CobaltBlueTony 20:29, 25 May 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:Coachella performers 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 05:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible precedent for the creation of countless other "[festival] performers" categories. A similar Coachella category was very recently deleted. jareha (comments) 20:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Such a temporal thing as a festival should not warrent a category. Linking to the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival article would likly be are more suiting since it could naturally (and easily) be linked to from within a specific artists article. (chubbstar) 03:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:47, 27 May 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 arts to Category:Arts 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 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name for Category:The arts is incorrect. The addition of the article "the" adds nothing to the subject and defines it no more than Category:Arts. This is being proposed as part of the categorization project for Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there's already a discussion of this topic. Conscious 19:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Kleinzach 19:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. As User:Ganymead states, this is a seperate debate from the one linked to, involving seperate categories. Hiding Talk 19:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I also agree with the comment from User:Ganymead that this issue is separate from the Art/Visual arts discussion. Clubmarx 21:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused I looked at some of the subcategories under The Arts and saw that back in 2004 this category was called 'Arts'. When and why did that change? Is there a reference to that discussion available? Bejnar 21:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Confused It looks as though between Dec 22 2005 and Dec 31, 2005 the category went from 'Arts' to 'The Arts' and then shortly thereafter went to 'The arts'. What is going on please? Bejnar 21:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename, per nominator.--cjllw | TALK 00:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Ganymead's nom. HAM   08:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something that's just cropped up: Would Category:The arts by country then change to Category:Arts by country? The former styling seems a bit clearer to me, but I can live with the latter. Also, its subcategories are styled Arts in Australia etc., so perhaps it does make more sense to change it. HAM   10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is also on my list. I was gonna wait and see what happens here before proposing the change, but since this appears to be going smoothly, we can consider throwing in out here as well. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Ham. - Kleinzach 11:23, 31 May 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:Gossip writers 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 05:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Category:Gossip writers" seems to have been created by multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes (see [1]) in order to denigrate some writers he doesn't like, as only a handful of authors are listed there, including some reputed authors such as Suzanne Finstad and Gavin Lambert. In my opinion, this category may be deleted. See [2]. The "Category:English celebrity biographers", also created by Wilkes with similar intentions, has already been deleted. Onefortyone 17:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest Keep, rename and rescope (more specifically) to Category:Gossip columnists. Not everybody who has ever written about celebrity "gossip" should be categorized as such as the category would be bloated and meaningless, and conversely people would end up overcategorized. But some people do make their entire living out of producing celebrity-related gossip: in the United Kingdom, The 3AM Girls would be a case in point. In a culture with a cult of celebrity that has become a potent economic force in its own right, people whose livelihoods are dependent and indetachable from this aspect of media should be categorized as such. Categories are binary in nature, and as far as I can see any writer's biography can be easily identified as either of a gossip columnist or not; "Gossip writers" in the wider sense is far less well defined or certain and should definitely go. TheGrappler 18:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This obviously had a POV purpose (it's in category:Communication of falsehoods, which is dodgy itself) and is hard to define, easy to abuse and lacking in no value. Osomec 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Twittenham 19:03, 27 May 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:Hip Pop/R&B singers 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 05:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too vauge, rather useless category, can't find nothing much in google nither about this music Delete Jaranda wat's sup 16:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Dirty pop. That is the subgenre of pop that has Hip-hop and R&B influences, but isn't really of the genre itself. Antares33712 19:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Forgive me folks, I had a chance to actually view the category. This should be quickly deleted, since it mixes popular singers in a ridiculous matter (Mary J. Blige, a soul alto with Alicia Keys, neo-soul, and Ashanti & Beyonce (dirty pop). Wow! While dirty pop is a valid subgenre of music, probably inclusive of Justin Timberlake, Chris Brown, Ciara, Jojo, Britney, Ashanti and Beyonce, any cat that that includes Mary J. Blige, A. Keys, and Ashanti (style-wise is like apples, oranges and plums). And only nine members. finally hip-pop is not a widely used term, dirty pop is pop music with hip-hop and/or R&B influences. Fans of "authentic" R&B (note the quotes) wouldn't respect Ashanti being in the same cat as say Teena Marie. This should be speedy-ed Antares33712 14:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More comment, R. Kelly and Usher are respected R&B vocalists (ok, new age R&B :-) ). Nelly is a rapper not even an R&B singer. Who did this? Antares33712 14:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the people you named (except Britney Spears and, arguably, Justin Timberlake) are indeed R&B singers. Whether they are good or not, or whether fans of "authentic" R&B like them, is entirely beside the point. They should indeed be in the same category as Teena Marie (after all, it'll only make Teena Marie look that much better...heh heh). --FuriousFreddy 02:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehehe, you are wrong :-) lol. Yeah, Ashanti does make Teena Marie look awfully good nowadays. But seriously, the point is with dirty pop (pop music with hip-hop and/or R&B influences), the above singers could fit. Britney isn't an R&B singer (oh no never), but her music does have R&B influences. Justin Timberlake and Ashanti are middle-ground dirty pop singers while Beyoncé is more straight R&B, but she could fit dirty pop as well. But Nelly, Mary J. Blige, A. Keys, and Ashanti in one cat is ridiculous. Unless one merely wants a musical fruit punch  :-) Antares33712 08:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nelly, Mary J. Blige, Alicia Keys, and Ashanti in one category is indeed ridiculous, but removing Nelly from that equasion doesn't seem disasterous. What is it about Ashanti's music that makes it "not R&B" (aside from her, er, technical shortcomings)? --FuriousFreddy 12:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is R&B. The genre has evolved. Some songs (and singers) are more R&B than others. Ciara and Chris Brown and even JT are R&B vocalists. Dirty pop really is a sungenre of R&B (and pop), much like rap and say gangsta rap. All save Britney really do qualify for R&B. But its just the way this cat tries to mix sings that makes me go, What was that? :-) Ashanti, Mariah, Aretha, and Minnie Riperton are R&B artists. (I'm dying of laughter as I type this) Antares33712 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, uneccesary and vague cat that will clutter pages. --Musicpvm 23:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Antares33712. -Big Smooth 20:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and very very quickly. --FuriousFreddy 02:48, 27 May 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:Patriot 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a parent of Category:Famous Baptist Ministers, pov and non-plural -- ProveIt (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. irredeemably POV and WP:POINT to boot. The 'famous' Baptist Ministers cat seems inappropriately named as well.--cjllw | TALK 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as requested. Twittenham 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inherently POV Lankiveil 03:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Military people from France to Category:Military people of France 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 relist for more opinions. Conscious 19:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to conform with by country conventions. Please see also a relevant discussion on the implementation of this set of categories at WikiProject Military History's Talk Page -- Andrés C. 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after comment Syrthiss 15:32, 25 May 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:Historiographer of Islam to Category:Islamic historiographers 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:Historiographers of Islam. Vegaswikian 05:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this new name does not imply these historiographers are Muslim (if it does then the old name just needs to be pluralized). Conscious 15:28, 25 May 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:Defunct QMJHL teams 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:Defunct Quebec Major Junior Hockey League teams. Vegaswikian 05:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category is empty and unused. No need to distinguish between current and former teams in categorization; all teams are in unbrella QMJHL category. Delete. BoojiBoy 15:26, 25 May 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:NHS defunct bodies to Category:NHS defunct organisations 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:Defunct National Health Service organisations. Conscious 10:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This recent category for the National Health Service can be tidied up. There's a rather inconsistent use of "organisation", "body" and "institution" in articles such as List of NHS institutions and organisations which can be clarified to help users. There's also a logical relationship to be thought about with Category:Former public bodies in the United Kingdom but, given the sheer size of the NHS, this proposal prioritises internal consistency for NHS information. There is a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Health Service#Categories for "NHS bodies/institutions/organisations"?. Any offers of neater alternatives?? --Mereda 14:17, 25 May 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:Seventh octave wonders to Category:Whistle range recording artists 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:Seventh-octave singers. Conscious 20:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shgould this cfd vote be renamed to Seventh-octave singers as well? Antares33712 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category title is totally fannish. Calling someone a wonder is a matter of opinion - some people may be able hit notes in a technical sense, even may have recorded a song, but whether someone else likes it, or thinks they are a "wonder" is a matter of pure opinion. I googled the term and only found it used in Wikipedia and it's mirror sites. Since a whistle register category already exists, it appears this category is seeking to distinguish artists who regularly and capably sing in this register from persons who can simply hit the notes. Thus, the title needs to reflect that fact. This is verifiable. Being "wonderful" is not. The definition/clarification for this that already exists on the main page is decent, although it could be tweaked. Esprit15d 13:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I agree but it shouldnt be called - "Whistle range recording artists" as this can easily be confused with the "whistle register" category. Simply "Seventh-octave singers" would be better.
The purpose of this category is to distinguish the rare singers who can sing in the seventh-octave from the singers (even coloratura) who can sing in whistle register, but not that high. C7 is an extremely high note that requires training, dedication and skill to execute. Making it whistle register singers reduces the rarity of this subcategory. Antares33712 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining, I've ammended my vote. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it fannish to have a category for singers who can sing in the seventh octave? I see it as a straightforward (even more so than the whistle register category, with all the bickering about whether the note is an E or an F above Soprano C, only restricted to whistle voice (which can be sung below E6), or allows head voice as well. All those things are more subjective unlike this where it is simply C7 and above. Nearly everybody in the cat is known and notable for their efforts in the octave. Antares33712 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see nothing wrong with this cat, other than there is nothing "wonderous" about high octave singing. Simply 7th octave singers would be more appropriate. As I stated on the other cfd log, we have other cats like Elvis Presley, mezzo-soprano, etc... 216.141.226.190 11:59, 31 May 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:Mercedes edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only contained Mercedes Jellinek. People are not categorized by their first name. Conscious 12:33, 25 May 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:Pro-choice users 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 05:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that {{User ProChoice}} was redirected to {{User abortion}} specifically to avoid this and pro-life categories. So it's time for it to go. Conscious 12:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • delete, per nom.--cjllw | TALK 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete otherwise rename, as current name potentially ambiguous. David Kernow 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why are an ordinary user's opinions notable? Antares33712 14:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Sophia 19:34, 28 May 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:R.Q.Riley Projects 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 05:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category seems to exist solely for advertisement. Conscious 12:16, 25 May 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:Scops owls 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. Vegaswikian 05:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if a proper group of these animals can be found and the cat sufficiently fleshed out. For example, think of all the different types of roses. A catgory of roses makes sense. How many different types of asparagus are there. A cat for asparagus wouldn't make sense. If only one type of Scops owl exists, then delete it. 216.141.226.190 02:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for taxonomic purposes (and fill) Antares33712 18:22, 2 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:Pygmy owls 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 Cat redirect. Vegaswikian 05:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulated by Spottedowl in favour of Category:Otus and Category:Glaucidium, respectively. Conscious 12:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Query I'm not big on zoology, but I would assume that normal naming rules apply for cats re: plurality. In which case the newer cats should be Category:Oti and Category:Glaucidia (in the same way that their parent cat Category:Strigidae is in the plural (one Strigida, two or more Strigidae). Of course, if the common English name were used the problem that most people don't know Latin plurals could be avoided! Is there some special exemption for zoological cats? Valiantis 14:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take it there are no ornithologists here. I'll have to do my own research. Other suborders, families etc. amongst the birds occur in plural form but when things get down to genera (which they don't often for cats), singular appears to be the order of the day. In the absence of more authoritative info, I will assume the non-pluralisation is correct. Valiantis 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Category:Horned owls, Category:Eared owls -- ProveIt (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Redirect to their respective latin names. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:09, 25 May 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:Foreign-born US political figures to Category:Foreign-born United States political figures edit

(Moved from speedy)
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:Foreign-born American politicians. Conscious 05:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation expanding for country name. jareha (comments) 07:45, 25 May 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 Baptist Ministers 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV and badly named. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:21, 25 May 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:Foreign Members of the Royal Society to Category:Foreign members of the Royal Society 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. Vegaswikian 05:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- capitalisation. --dm (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after opposition. Vegaswikian 06:15, 25 May 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:Bombers 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 out of process Speedy deletion by Cyde (talk · contribs) --William Allen Simpson 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:SFD. Conscious 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. Was populated with an airplane, an arab terrorist, the Unabomber and 2 or 3 more. I re-categorized these properly. Delete. Azate 05:56, 25 May 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.



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/merge all three --William Allen Simpson 04:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executions by hanging to Category:People executed by hanging edit

Category:Executions by poison to Category:People executed by poison edit

Category:Executions by unspecified method to Category:People executed by unspecified method edit

These don't match any of the other subcategories of Category:Executions by method, and the first one exactly duplicates to Category:People executed by hanging. There was a confusing debate here that resulted in almost all of the categories changing into "People executed by...", but not these. I'm not clear whether this was intentional.--Mike Selinker 05:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's meant to be a "catch-all" category for all those individuals whose articles state they were executed but do not include how. However, I agree and realise that its population could be moved to Category:Executed people (adding note to this category that any articles in it are about individuals whose means of execution is unknown or unspecified). If no objections or better ideas by the time this debate closed, I undertake to make this move. Regards, David Kernow 11:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. Having any people in the ubercategory seems to encourage many editors to attempt to put ALL people in the ubcategory and its subcategories. I'd prefer to avoid that if possible. So I'm okay with the "unspecified method" category. (Alternatively, we could just make sure all these people are in some category of Category:Executions by country and Category:Executions by occupation, and then delete this category. I'd be OK with that too.)--Mike Selinker 05:50, 29 May 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:Terrorist_incidents_by_country edit

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

The result of the debate was already speedied. Conscious 05:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Same thing as Category:Terrorism by country -- Azate 00:58, 25 May 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:Music Electronic 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 delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a category -- ProveIt (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seems to be about a laptop music competition – perhaps called "Music Electronic" – for which an article would seem more appropriate. (Perhaps suggest this to category's creator if/when category deleted?)  David Kernow 06:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Esprit15d 13:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 'Electronic music competitions' as the category. I agree that what is there is article material. Bejnar 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I was going to suggest moving to an article, but after reading the content it would be a speedy delete for no context and external links. Vegaswikian 17:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied per Vegaswikian -- ProveIt (talk) 19:12, 25 May 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:Classical studies to Category:Classical civilisation 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. Vegaswikian 05:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To conform with Portal:Classical Civilisation -- Nema Fakei 18:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, WAS, why are you now moving/adding things manually to this new cat you've made, Classical Antiquity? --Nema Fakei 11:23, 26 May 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_May_25&oldid=1136104253"