Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 8

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< September 7 September 9 >

September 8 edit

Category:Virtual airlines 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 17:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virtual airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Strangely Named Places in Pennsylvania 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 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strangely Named Places in Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, For sure, this category is not correctly named, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). I also am not sure it's a good category, since inclusion in the category is ambiguous. It's hard to tell what "strange" really means. I guess I could've speedy renamed it, but I think it's worth discussing the propriety as a category as well. -- Mikeblas 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No room for humor in Wikipedia. Wikipedia must be bland. Golfcam 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; humo/ur yes, but inherently subjective evaluation...  David Kernow 02:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one belongs in a miscellany rather than an encyclopedia. 18:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV, and probably too trivial for a category. It probably could be listified if there are cites that define what names are "strange". --Cswrye 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Same as above, but remove category from applicable cities rather than relocating them to the seemingly-useless "Place Names" category, as an anon recently did. --Thisisbossi 04:19, 11 September 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:Leeds United 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Leeds United article has changed from Leeds United F.C. to Leeds United AFC it makes sense to move the categories related to this club to have the suffix AFC instead of the old F.C. so I propose moving following categories below:

Move as per nom Kingjamie 18:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom. Golfcam 20:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. --Cswrye 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. — Dale Arnett 17:45, 10 September 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:Hojo clan edit

and

Category:Go-Hojo clan 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 17:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Go-Hojo clan to Category:Go-Hōjō clan

  • Rename [both], Macrons are allowed now in article titles, and presumably in category titles as well. "Hōjō", with macrons, is a more correct spelling. LordAmeth 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support [both], for rename, but please keep the old name as a category redirect. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and redirect both per ProveIt. David Kernow 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep old names as redirects. --Cswrye 19:56, 9 September 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:Anime Charachters who can fly 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 17:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anime Charachters who can fly to Category:Manga and anime characters who can fly

  • Rename to:
1. Correct the spelling
2. Keep in line with naming conventions
3. Manga and anime should be kept together


=) ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • support: When I created this category I wasn't thinking of manga but it should deffinately be kept with anime Irate velociraptor 19:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom (manga are frequently adapted to anime and vice versa). -HKMarks 00:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Cswrye 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for get the rename, get rid of this useless catgory. --Kunzite 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should remain a subcategory of that unless it's shown to be very small after being populated. Unless you want to subdivide the characters differently. -HKMarks 05:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well maybe there are lots. I just feel they tend to all be in one or two shows which you can subcategorise. Meh, doesn't matter. The other option would be to create an "Animation characters" to absorb the Powerpuff girls as well as Dragonball characters, but that would disclude Manga. With super strength, though, all the anime characters fit well without a subcategory.~ZytheTalk to me! 07:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dragon Ball characters shouldn't really be there as a lump, actually. Many (like Chichi, Bulma, Mr. Satan) can't fly. Manga/Anime overlap -- everyone in Dragon Ball is both an anime and a manga character. And do you really want Bubblegum Crisis and Rocky J. Squirrel in the same subcategory? -HKMarks 00:55, 13 September 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:Christian media campaigns 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 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian media campaigns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Canadian military cadets and Category:Cadets 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:57, 15 September 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:Turkish-English people 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 keep, populated --Kbdank71 16:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if still empty at close of discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in any case. Brammen 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually there's no need to delete it anymore, because now it's no longer empty! Onur 14:47, 13 September 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:Horror story collections 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 16:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horror story collections to Category:Horror short story collections

  • Rename, The inclusion of the word "short" -- while minor -- seems to fit with standard wikipedia formating better than the previous name. Nick Curtis 12:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Cswrye 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category: People who appeared on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!'s "Not My Job" segment 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 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who appeared on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!'s "Not My Job" segment

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:DC Comics characters with super strength 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 16:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DC Comics characters with super strength (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • This category is too broad to be useful. T-1000 09:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article was ALREADY elected for deltion and was overturned. Why are we going over it again? (Animedude 11:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Necessary subcategory of Category:Fictional characters with super strength. -HKMarks 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both above. It also proves manageable and useful. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too broad, main category is pretty useless itself, and I don't think seperating by company really helps. Exvicious 12:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This really is unnecasary catagory Cnriaczoy42 12:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Marvel Comics characters with super strength 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 16:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics characters with super strength (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • This category is too broad to be useful. T-1000 09:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was ALREADY elected fro deltion and was overturned. Why are we going over it again? (Animedude 11:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. Necessary subcategory of Category:Fictional characters with super strength. -HKMarks 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both above. It also proves manageable and useful. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both look useful to me to break up an unwieldly category.--Mike Selinker 23:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And by the way, the main article was up for deletion as far as i can tell. The main cat was up for deletion. My main gripe is the superfulousness of the main category which makes the subcat even more unnecessary. Exvicious 12:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This really is unnecasary catagory, aswell as the superstrength category Cnriaczoy42 12:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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:Jews who converted to Christianity 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 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jews who converted to Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Although I can see some value in it it's possibly opening up a Pandora's box of "X who converted to Y" categories. As a hypothetical example let's say Category:Catholics who converted to Scientology. If categories like that are okay then it might be okay, but I felt like it should be discussed whether we want to keep this and lead to that or not. (I actually meant to put this on categories for discussion, but that seems to be the same as cats for deletion)--T. Anthony 07:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I see some of the value, I can't see why this category is needed. If we decide to go for this category I think some of the conversions between the major religions should be added (notably: Category:Christians who converted to Islam). But as mentioned above this may easily confuse the whole issue because it could be argued that in such a case a huge number of X-converted-to-Y categories may explode. As it is now, I am slightly in favour of deletion of the category; but if we decide to keep it, I think several other X-to-Y categories will need to be added. Arnoutf 08:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First, because "Jews" is unclear. Second, it would include nearly every name in the New Testament. Third, what is considered to be a "conversion"? In the middle ages, there were forced "public" conversions of those who follow Judaism (among others) - at times, upon pain of torture or death. Fourth, this cries out for citations (which means a "list" rather than a category). I honestly don't think even listifying is a good idea in this case. - jc37 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Here's why:
(1) If the qualm is that it may open up a number of other "X who converted to Y" categories, what is wrong with that? There already are very well-developed articles for List of converts to Christianity, List of converts to Judaism, and List of converts to Islam, and I'm sure others will follow (Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, &c.). Why ought there not to be categories for these, too? If this means that users can/will create Category:Catholics who converted to Scientology or Category:Christians who converted to Islam, that's not a bad thing. If there are a large number of people who could belong in either category, and a person doing research wanted to know of notable Catholics who converted to Scientology or Christians who coverted to Islam (and I know there are indeed lots of those - there's already a list about them), such a category might pose a good resource. That does not seem a good reason for deleting this category.
(2) This category seems based on the information available both in the articles themselves and from the List of converts to Christianity#From Judaism, which includes a great number of citations (many from the Jewish Encyclopedia itself). Basically, as the category is now, if the article about the person includes cited information that they converted (or, yes, were converted) from Judaism to Christianity, this category clearly applies. Furthermore, this category does have citations - in the articles themselves. As for who "Jews" are, see Who is a Jew?. According to that, all the people in this category clearly qualify. Such concerns pose no reason for the extreme measure of deleting the whole category.
In sum, Wikipedia is about public research, and this category clearly would benefit a researcher attempting to research Jews who converted to Christianity. Let's say a person is doing research about the various reasons that Jews convert to Christianity, be it marriage, a spiritual experience, family pressure, anti-semitism, curiosity, or any of the myriad other reasons people on this list have done so, this list would provide a great resource. Instead of trudging through a huge Wikipedia search that might not yield viable results, if the researcher found one of the people in this category he or she would find the rest very easily, and it would be a great benefit. This category is perfectly in line with Wikipedia's purposes: providing free, public, and unbiased research. 65.28.2.218 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 65.28.2.218, there are reasons that certain things are lists instead of categories, and this is one. A list can contain sources, a category cannot. That makes categories very prone to POV abuse. Saying that other categories that are bad ideas can be created isn't much of an analogy! If you think this research is useful, I invite you to create that list, using verifiable and reliable sources. That would be the best way to help your hypothetical researcher. --Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gladly will do so. If I agree to create those categories, then, I presume that you will change your vote to "keep"? 65.28.2.218 14:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hard a defining characteristics of a person. Encyclopedia is about articles and article about Judaism -> Christianity conversions is missing. At worst yet another unmaintainable and useless list could be created. Pavel Vozenilek 03:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, that list already exists! See List of converts to Christianity#From Judaism! It's not unmaintainable and useless. It's commonplace on Wikipedia. This category is no different. 65.28.2.218 04:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a list in itself, it's a subsection of a list. We have Category:Converts to Christianity and it's not remotely so full we need subsections yet. If anyone suggested deleting Category:Converts to Christianity I'd fight against them, but then again I'm not saying I favor deleting this. I just felt it deserved discussion. (I should mention that the creator of this category is Jewish so I'm certainly not arguing it had an anti-Jewish stance. It was probably just to add more about Jewish history or what not, I'm just not sure this area needs further exploring)--T. Anthony 14:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete needs citations and sourcing per all the above editors: and as Jews are an ethnic group if someone is Jewish but has always been Christian is s/he a "convert"? In whose POV? Carlossuarez46 06:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The individual articles do have citations and sourcing. The people on the list at one time practiced Judaism, but at some point in their lives converted to Christianity. It's very, very simple, and is highly useful (see above). 65.28.2.218 14:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 65.28.2.218. 134.193.245.10 16:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about Jews who convert but insist that they are still Jews, e.g. Jews for Jesus?--Holdenhurst 12:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fairness I think this is meant to be about religious conversion. Whether they maintain a cultural, ethnic, or even partial religious identity as Jewish is not the point. For example it includes Saint Jude and other Apostles, all of whom maintained a Jewish cultural identity or even kept with Jewish law with modifications.--T. Anthony 13:22, 14 September 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.

Red vs. Blue 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 16:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red vs Blue to Category:Red vs. Blue
Category:Red vs Blue characters to Category:Red vs. Blue characters
Category:Wikipedians who like Red vs Blue to Category:Wikipedians who like Red vs. Blue
  • Rename. A consensus on Talk:Red vs. Blue#Requested move decided that Wikipedia should use "Red vs. Blue" istead of "Red vs Blue" as the name of this series. These related categories should be updated to reflect that change. — TKD::Talk 05:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per consensus. --Cswrye 19:56, 9 September 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:Wrestlecrap 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 16:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wrestlecrap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, This category isn't needed. Wrestlecrap is a site that lists bad wrestlers. It's not hard to just go to wrestlecrap to find out who is part of it. If anything, just post the list on the WrestleCrap page on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 05:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed. Not enough entries to make it worth keeping. Plus what RobJ1981 said. --James Duggan 05:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RobJ1981. --Oakster (Talk) 07:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed - just link to the website itself, no need for a list either. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed.Halbared 13:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed. One person's crap is another's treasure. Also, it's kind of like branding, since it's the name of a famous website.Geoffg 14:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Golfcam 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 21:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A cult website with a alexa rating of 244,354 [1] barely deserves an article (if that), let alone mentions of inductions on various pages and this category. Renosecond 01:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Cswrye 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It might be notable enough for an article, since it does have somewhat of a following on the Internet Wrestling Community, but the category is nothing but catcruft and anti-fancruft. And I speak as a pro wrestling fan. — Dale Arnett 07:19, 10 September 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:Former NASCAR drivers 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 keep, but remove drivers from Category:NASCAR drivers. No need to be in both. --Kbdank71 15:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former NASCAR drivers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete. We do not classify people by current or former occupations. No need to merge, since all of the articles are also in Category:NASCAR drivers - EurekaLott 04:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 04:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Eureka. RobJ1981 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Golfcam 20:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree. Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR needs this category. It helps separate current NASCAR drivers with former drivers. If you can propose a way to keep a hand-compiled list with all the former NASCAR drivers (which there are hundreds), go ahead. But do not get rid of this category, because it is very important to WikiProject NASCAR. The project has recently said that they will try to create an article for every single NASCAR driver to race in the higher series. If you have another idea insted of a "former driver", please let me know, and I will try to implement that. Casey14 15:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to keep this category. There have been 2835 NASCAR drivers in the top series alone. All those drivers, under Wikipedia standards, can receive pages. That isn't including the lower 2 NASCAR series, which themselves have hundreds of drivers too. Casey14 19:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Casey. The regular category was just way too crowded and was difficult to sort through. We also have Category:Defunct NASCAR teams in conjuction with Category:NASCAR teams that works just fine. I think segregating the two is good for organization and making everything less confusing. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 18:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Brammen 18:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Casey and D-Day. We at least ought to listen when people who are involved in the related WikiProject speak up. I also suggest that subcats be created for former drivers in the various NASCAR series (NEXTEL Cup and its predecessors, Busch Series, Craftsman Truck Series). — Dale Arnett 07:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't really see any precedent for doing it this way. I'm sure we can find better ways to break down the category than this (if we even need to). Recury 14:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and move to be a subcategory of Category:NASCAR drivers. Create Category:Current NASCAR drivers and move all drivers to either the Current or Former category, depopulating the parent category. Bluap 18:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nobody seems to be refuting the arguments of Casey and D-Day.--Holdenhurst 12:34, 14 September 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.

Nobel winners by nationality 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 keep --Kbdank71 15:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following set a bad precedent for prizes won by nationality, and is redundant with both nationailty and nobel winner categories. The topic is well covered by Nobel laureates by country, delete them all.--Peta 04:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nobel laureates by nationality
Category:Spanish Nobel Prize winners
Category:Portuguese Nobel Prize winners
Category:Russian Nobel Prize winners
Category:Polish Nobel Prize winners
Category:Israeli Nobel Prize winners
Category:Indian Nobel Laureates
Category:Hungarian Nobel laureates
Category:Finnish Nobel Prize winners
Category:English Nobel laureates
Category:Dutch Nobel Prize winners
Category:Scottish Nobel laureates
Category:British Nobel laureates
Category:Argentine Nobel Prize winners
Keep, it makes a good subsection of Science and Technology in Country. Mariano(t/c) 07:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are of clear interest. Brammen 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Brammen, and rename consistently. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I'm not sure about placing these in Category:Science and technology by country as only three out of 5 prizes are for science. Golfcam 20:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The award itself mentions what nation the winner is from. (Specifying English and Scottish might be a bit much though)--T. Anthony 06:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Prolog 10:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have some sympathy for the proposer, but the Nobels are in a special class of prestige so need special treatment.--Holdenhurst 12:32, 14 September 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:Golden Globe winners 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 14:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golden Globe winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 Sports Network personalities 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 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Sports Network personalities to Category:TSN personalities

  • Rename, to be consistent with the result of Talk:TSN, and Category:TSN: "The Sports Network " name is not legally or formally used anymore by the network. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions: "former abbreviations that have become the official name should be used in their official form where there are no other conflicts." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See my comment on Category:National Broadcasting Company personalities below.--Holdenhurst 12:28, 14 September 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:Columbia Broadcasting System personalities 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 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Columbia Broadcasting System personalities to Category:CBS personalities

As per WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions: "former abbreviations that have become the official name should be used in their official form where there are no other conflicts." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:03, 8 September 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:National Broadcasting Company personalities 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 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Broadcasting Company personalities to Category:NBC personalities

As per WP:NCCAT#General naming conventions: "former abbreviations that have become the official name should be used in their official form where there are no other conflicts." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearer for people outside the US (yes, there are a few).--Holdenhurst 12:26, 14 September 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:Filipino female singers 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 withdrawn --Kbdank71 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino female singers into Category:Filipino singers

  • Withdrawn; see below for current proposal.
  • Merge, Acording to Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, "A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." I have not been able to find such a relation for this topic. We have no article on Filipino female singers, and Music of the Philippines does not discuss a difference between male and female Filipino singers. There are quite a few articles in the two categories, so a split would not be bad, but it shouldn't be by gender unless we have an encyclopedic reason for it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are many such categories, eg Category:American female singers, Category:British female singers. Men and women have different voices. Brammen 16:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, it is common practice at Wikipedia to subcategorize singers by gender. When it comes to singing, I think gender is very important. Category:Female singers by nationality has 18 subcategories, so there is no reason to delete this one. --musicpvm 19:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator apparently didn't know that it is part of a series. No way are we getting rid of the whole series. Golfcam 20:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate being informed that this is part of a series. I certainly have no interest in removing the whole series, and the difference between male and feamale voices is also certainly known to me. However, having X singers only contain male singers seems incorrect. I suppose I should start a seperate nomination to propose reanming X singers to X male singers, and having the X singers categories contain only X male singers and X female singers. But comments or pointers to existing discussion on this would be greatly appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Further comment - I see that X male singers categories are quite common; e.g. Category:French_male_singers, Category:Japanese male singers; there is even a category for them: Category:Male singers by nationality. Looking over the two examples mentioned, the way seems to be to categorize all singers of a given nationality under X singers, and have the X male singers and X female singers categories in a X singers by gender category. I've withdrawn this nomination, and intend to go ahead with this new proposal (as it merely involves adding categories, not removing or renameing them), unless I hear of objections (please use my talk page to make sure I get them). Thanks for your comments. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a terrible idea. No-one should be in the national singer categories, and everyone should be in subcategories by gender and style. Brammen 18:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reviewing the existing categories, I see that you are correct. I've asked a bot master to make it so; sorry for the confusion. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Filipina female singers, anyone? -choster 02:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rather too pedantic? ;-)
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:Ongoing historical eras 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 per User:TrackerTV --Kbdank71 14:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Modern history. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some reasoning for your nomination. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In order for a historical era to be ongoing, it must of course be modern. There can't be any ancient ongoing historical eras. Therefore, ongoing historical eras means recent, or modern history. And of course we already have a category for moden history. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. David Kernow 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete It only contains one article, and that is about a concept, not a specific era. The category name seems to hard to define to be worth the bother. Golfcam 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I doubt that the two are synonymous.--Holdenhurst 12:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article that remains there is already in the merge target cat, so it's not worth a Continental to get rid of it. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 23:58, 14 September 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_September_8&oldid=1136103494"