Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 16

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< August 15 August 17 >

August 16

edit

Category:List of schools in Karnataka

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, empty --Kbdank71 18:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of schools in Karnataka to Category:Schools in Karnataka

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.

Wikipedians by religion

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 18:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this category is nicely organized as "X Wikipedians," but there are a few outliers:

The "pey" nominations are occupied by the same person (only), so they seem to be the same. There's also already category:Charismatic Wikipedians, so I took the liberty of narrowing the Pentecostal one. If I made any religious descriptive errors, point 'em out.--Mike Selinker 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. JChap2007 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming any category not actually listed here. The proponent marked Category:ELCA Wikipedians for renaming to Category:Evangelical Lutheran Wikipedians, with the discussion link pointing here. The argument above does not appear to address this case, however. I specifically oppose this renaming, because the proposed category name is vague. The ELCA is a specific Lutheran body. There are other "Evangelical" Lutheran churches, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. The current name has the form "X Wikipedians", and is clear and specific.--Srleffler 05:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please give me more than 15 minutes to post, thanks. All categories are now listed. I fixed the ELCA category per your comment, but the abbreviation should be spelled out.--Mike Selinker 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I didn't realize the listing was so recent, and still under construction. I made a minor change above and in the category: the correct name of the church is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.--Srleffler 11:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for catching that. This is an area where little details matter a whole bunch.--Mike Selinker 12:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, given the changes made by the proponent.--Srleffler 11:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. - LA @ 08:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all pre nom. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename most, but if LCMS is expanded, it should be "Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Wikipedians" for consistency. Also, I find "Christian Scientist Wikipedians" to have greater potential for confusion than the original, although a warning is given on the cat page. Finally, I'm not clear why the student categories shouldn't be Category:Jewish seminary student Wikipedians and Category:Yeshiva student Wikipedians, to be parallel with Category:Student Wikipedians. Gimmetrow 15:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that; it appears Category:Student Wikipedians was renamed. Gimmetrow 15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Missouri Synod entry.--Mike Selinker 23:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Famous groups of athletes

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to category:Nicknamed groups of sportspeople --Kbdank71 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems overly vague to me. Famous for what? -- ProveIt (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Current singles

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete. We generally don't separate living/dead or active/inactive entities in categories, which are so difficult to update and monitor. This cat will become out-of-date particularly quickly, and lacks an objective definition for current. I suggest that we can get by with Category:2006 singles and its peers, which do not require updating. ×Meegs 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No living/dead categories for records.--Mike Selinker 23:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this category is populated by {{CurrentSingles}}, but I don't think it's useful, especially when there are categories for each year. --musicpvm 01:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't notice that before. I suppose there's nothing wrong with the template; it just doesn't need a cat. ×Meegs 01:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Caegory:Wikipedians interested in Mexico

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 speedy delete, replaced by Category:Wikipedians interested in Mexico. ×Meegs 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caegory:Wikipedians interested in Mexico. This is my own typo, and not a likely one to work as a redirect. Because of the typo, it is now a cross-namespace redirect (I think). I fixed it with a new page, but I can't delete the incorrect page. Rbraunwa 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Number one singles categories

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 17:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lyrical Beasts

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 17:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lyrical Beasts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, POV category, description is "Lyrical Beasts can be described as rappers with exceptional rhyming skill." musicpvm 20:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-standard definition not useful enough. Stephen B Streater 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-standard definition --M@rēino 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-standard and subjective definition. JChap2007 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. David Kernow 10:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Legends Killed by Randy Orton

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 17:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legends Killed by Randy Orton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, POV title, description is "This is a list of WWE 'Legends' that Randy Orton has either RKO'd or pinned in a match." This is not a notable enough characteristic for a category. musicpvm 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cloachland 23:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm a pro wrestling fan, and I don't think it's notable at all. — Dale Arnett 05:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is it not notable, but if you read Talk:Randy Orton you'll see that the same list was removed from the article also because of debate over just who is a "legend" and who isn't, etc. So if there isn't even a consensus to make this list available in the main article, it certainly shouldn't be a category. Dugwiki 16:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and comments. Croctotheface 13:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete RobJ1981 05:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and comments. Flibirigit 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:The 30 Greatest D&D Adventures of All Time

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, empty --Kbdank71 17:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The 30 Greatest D&D Adventures of All Time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Magazine lists/countdowns should not be made into categories. This should be deleted or listified as it is already presented in a list form in the category. The category only includes two articles. musicpvm 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say listify, but it is not worth merely reproducing a reprint of a list that appeared in a D&D fan magazine. It may be a copyvio as well. JChap2007 23:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete and I am willing to do it, just let me know when. - LA @ 08:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify by LA. David Kernow 10:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not listify to avoid copyvio. - EurekaLott 11:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List if possible instead. Dugwiki 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per EurekaLott. I've edited out the list, as it belongs to the magazine, not us. -- nae'blis 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eureka. Plus, any such list that misses the whole 'Against the Giants/Sipder Queen' 7 part first ed. module series ain't much of a list. LOL. ThuranX 06:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Photokineticists

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 already renamed ×Meegs 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Photokineticists to Category:Fictional photokineticists [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:Sex Symbols

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 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sex Symbols (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:Controversial terms

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 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial terms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Cat is ambiguous and seems POV. musicpvm 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no clear way of telling whether something is in this category. Incidentally, planet has now been defined as something big enough to form a ball under its own gravity. Stephen B Streater 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because membership would be based on opinion (POV) instead of defined rules. --M@rēino 21:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly the category should include itself, right? Too POV. JChap2007 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting idea, but impossible to objectively verify. Dugwiki 16:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ThuranX 17:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Black and white films

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 17:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black and white films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, too broad. This category was previously nominated for deletion, but there was no consensus. The previous discussion can be found here. Ibaranoff24 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. RobJ1981 19:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculously strong delete. Pleasantville has nothing to do with The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. BoojiBoy 20:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, keep, and I will keep on voting keep every time this gets nominated. If someone wants to split this so that films make before the invention of color film (1895) or cheap color film (1935) get their own category, that's fine, but for all films after 1895, the decision to film in color was a choice, either economically or artistically, with significant effects for cinematography, message, and marketing. --M@rēino 21:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per M@rēino SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if you can call filming in black and white a choice anymore than you can say that no one films in Cinerama anymore because they choose not to. Anything is doable given infinite money, but the larger issue for a long time was practicality. And most color film systems were either excessively complicated, unproven, or of poor quality, with a few notable exceptions. A prime example of this is Jacques Tati's Jour de Fete, which was filmed in Thomson Color but unable to be completed due to large technical problems with the color system which were never fully resolved by Thomson during the production. Therefore the film was released on the black and white backup which was made in the event the system wasn't perfect. That wasn't an artistic or economic choice - the color system was abandoned. You can see why color was not swiftly adopted, with the exception of a few systems such as Technicolor (I assume that's your 1935 date) which were certainly too cumbersome and elaborate to be called cheap by any means. There's a reason why the number of films actually filmed in the Technicolor format is relatively small. Color film did not become cheap or practical enough to be a choice for 35 mm productions until the introduction of Eastmancolor in 1950. Girolamo Savonarola 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mareino although it may make sense to make subcats for this. JoshuaZ 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mareino. We already discussed this. It's not fair to continually renominate a category until you get the result you want. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems a valid category to me, just as black and white photography is still used today. Stephen B Streater 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One semi-modern film I know that was purposefully filmed in black and white was Young Frankenstein. Another more modern film that is nearly all black and white Sin City. They would belong in this category in my opinion. - LA @ 08:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nearly pointless. Casper Claiborne 10:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no problems with this category at all. The fact that its large just means it could be subcategorized, by decade of release for example. Moreover, some people are particularly interested in black and white film specifically, so this could be a useful category for them, and it also opens the door to some interesting possible subcategories such as "Black and White films that have been colorized". Dugwiki 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too broad, and frankly, mostly pointless.ThuranX 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and subcategorize; this is perfectly logical in a category tree. -- nae'blis 01:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mareino et al. - Jc37 16:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fincups (OHL) alumni

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Hamilton Fincups alumni --Kbdank71 17:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fincups (OHL) alumni to Category:Fincups alumni

  • Rename, Simplifying the name of the category. The (OHL) is incorrect, as it was not the league with the Fincups played in. The Fincups (OHL) article was moved to Hamilton Fincups as per previous discussions on the requested move. This category should be renamed also. Flibirigit 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Seems like a perfectly legitimate category.--J3wishVulcan 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a legitimite category, but incorrectly named. Flibirigit 20:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate rename. I prefer that the player/alumni categories be consistent with the article for the team. So, I propose Category:Hamilton Fincups alumni. e.g. the current incarnation of the team is the Erie Otters and the alumni are at Category:Erie Otters alumni. (I know that it was in St. Catherines for a year. However, the consensus was to have the team article named "Hamilton Fincups".) -- JamesTeterenko 22:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate rename. Works for me. The year in St. Catharines was only for emergency purposes anyway. BoojiBoy 14:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate rename is fine with me. But either way the "(OHL)" section in the title needs to be removed. Flibirigit 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate rename as per JamesTeterenko. Skudrafan1 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate rename per above. Resolute 17:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bernadotte

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 17:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bernadotte to Category:House of Bernadotte

  • Rename, This is the ruling house of Sweden, so the category should follow the usual form for royal families. Sumahoy 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Osomec 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 10:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Flibirigit 17:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

category:Factmonster

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 17:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No content, apart from FU image that shouldn't be there and Information, Please!, which is only vaguely related, and it is apparently misnamed. — Dunc|☺ 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information, Please! now corrected to Infoplease in Factmonster article. David Kernow 10:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I'm not sure what if any articles might qualify for inclusion. David Kernow 10:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and the whole set, category and article, seem like commercial advertising, and probably should go to AfD for that reason.ThuranX 17:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Kilmarnock F.C. footballers

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 17:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kilmarnock F.C. footballers (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:Filipino American

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, empty --Kbdank71 17:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino American (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:Politics in Belize

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 17:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Politics of Belize, member of Category:Politics by country. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Comedies without dramatic endings

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 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a distinguishing characteristic. Also, the name alone constitutes a spoiler. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and lack of subjects in cat., seems to be one person's project.ThuranX 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SatyrTN 16:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and Thuranx and also because the inclusion criterion is highly subjective. JoshuaZ 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Dugwiki 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --musicpvm 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creator should have named it Category:Comedies without serious material (based on the named criteria for inclusion), but even that would be too POV. It's a matter of opinion what consitutes a dramatic/serious ending. JChap2007 23:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per just being too silly. - LA @ 08:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Alumni of Reading University

edit

Category:Alumni of the University of Reading

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 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Merge both] to Category:University of Reading alumni. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. Osomec 18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both for consistency. --musicpvm 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both per above. David Kernow 12:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Rick Ross singles

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Rick Ross songs. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also merge
Category:Foo Fighters singles to Category:Foo Fighters songs
Category:Grateful Dead singles to Category:Grateful Dead songs
Category:Skye Sweetnam singles to Category:Skye Sweetnam songs
Category:Missile Innovation singles to category:Missile Innovation songs
Category:Céline Dion singles to category:Celine Dion songs
  • Rename. I wonder if there's any way to get people to stop creating these categories.--Mike Selinker 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sent a comment to each of the creators of these categories asking hem to use the "songs" convention. I'm thinking we need to tag the Singles category in some way, or maybe even (ulp) get rid of it.--Mike Selinker 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no fan of the higher-up singles categories, but I'm not eager to push for their deletion either. Also, of the three nominated cats, notice that none are parented by a singles cat, so their existance might not be a major factor. {{Single infobox}} might be, but changing its name doesn't make much sense. ×Meegs 23:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This, of course, follows discussion at WikiProject Songs and here at CfD (April 28, June 9, July 5, July 11, July 21, August 3), concluding that categories for individual artists' singles should be merged or renamed to include all of their songs. I've added the Foo Fighters and Grateful Dead cats above. ×Meegs 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the new proposed merge of Foo Fighters and Greatful Dead cats. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: Adding these.--Mike Selinker 19:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Skye Sweetnam singles Rename to Category:Skye Sweetnam songs. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Missile Innovation singles Rename to Category:Missile Innovation songs. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Céline Dion singles Rename to Category:Céline Dion songs. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Roman Catholic Saints

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 16:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Saints, currently a member of Category:Roman Catholics. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Aren't there saints in other religions? SatyrTN 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I agree, however Category:Coptic saints is already a subcat of Category:Saints, plus most of the current members seem to be roman catholic, it looks like saints cat is already defacto roman catholic. There's already a wikiproject for this and I'm sure they will have an opinion ... If people want a reverse merge thats fine with me. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are some saints that are only recognized in the roman church. See this guide for a listing List of saints. --evrik 19:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though it is cumbersome. Sumahoy 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the category page itself. The saints need to be moved into subcategories based on the category page. So leave this new category and reverse merge the Roman Catholic saints into it from Category:Saints. Vegaswikian 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Anglican church also has saints not recognized by the Roman Catholic church. Agent 86 00:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per Agent 86 and Evrik. JoshuaZ 02:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Roman Catholic saints. Since when is "saint" a proper noun? Grutness...wha? 05:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought it was a title, like King or Pope or General. Do we capitalize titles? I know we do when we are using them as part of someones name ... but not sure in the general case. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reckon you've all but described the syntax, Eric; capitals when referring to specific individuals, lowercase when referring to them as a group. Regards, David Kernow 08:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Grutness. - LA @ 08:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nothing else, rename to Category:Roman Catholic saints per Grutness. David Kernow 12:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - There has been a sinilar discussion about Category:Italian saints. There are perhaps several categories that should be renamed since, as mentioned above, other groups besides the RC church have "saints". - Jc37 16:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Grutness. But will this apply to all saints recognized by the RCC, or just the ones specific to it?--Cúchullain t/c 19:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Dallas actors

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Dallas (TV series) actors --Kbdank71 16:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dallas actors to Category:Dallas (television series) actors

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:Train simulator computer games

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 16:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Train simulator computer games to Category:Train simulation computer and video games

(Hope I've done this right: my first time)

  • Rename per nom. The reasoning seems logical to me. --WikiCats 13:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. SatyrTN 14:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Osomec 18:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Drug films

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 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drug films into Category:Drug-related films

  • Merge. Duplicate category created by Cchamber (talk · contribs) based on an exclusive criteria that he invented, yet does not hold true in the real world. The purpose of one main category like Category:Drug-related films, is to create subcats within it as it grows larger, not to create multiple categories at the top. So, if there were enough films about or related to a particular drug, we would create a subcat within the related film category, not another cat about drugs. —Viriditas | Talk 11:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Chicheley 13:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. David Kernow 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mansions

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 16:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mansion" is a highly subjective term. I am in the process of cleaning up the whole of Category:Houses and have already moved the individual houses in Category:Mansions to the relevant by-country categories. However that was only a few dozen out of maybe the best part of a thousand residences with a claim to the vague and undefinable status of "mansion", and there wasn't the slightest sign of consistency in selection (most of them were in Italy or Scotland, while much grander houses elsewhere were not in the category) and I don't think there ever will or could be any consistency. The remaining articles are words for large houses, but it is POV to say which relate to mansions and which do not, so the category should be removed altogether. There is also a category for Canada, and for Canada only, whereas there are "houses in" categories for dozens of countries.

Merge both Olborne 10:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom as POV. Landolitan 10:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The blurb on Category:Mansions makes it clear how subjective this term is, and there is really little point in attempting to apply a distinction as most houses with articles are mansions, broadly interpreted. Wimstead 11:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Chicheley 13:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I created category:Fictional mansions, and this seems like a good change.—Mike Selinker 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. Osomec 18:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. --musicpvm 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - LA @ 08:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom to Category:Members of the Privy Council

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 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 07:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ireland, Sweden, Thailand, Canada also have Privy councils -- ProveIt (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There just need to be some cats made for the council prior to the formation of the UK.--Peta 08:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... of Scotland ... of Ireland ... of Sweden ... of Thailand and ... of Canada exist. - Kittybrewster 09:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ProveIt. Chicheley 13:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ProveIt. SatyrTN 14:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ProveIt. I believe there was also a privy counsel for Habsburg Austria. Agent 86 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This PC is not "of the United Kingdom" and never has been. Proteus (Talk) 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current category includes Privy Counsellors predating 1801 (that is, in the Kingdom of Great Britain). As Kittybrewster said, we already have categories for the other councils; this one is the only one regularly referred to in English as simply "the Privy Council" or "HM Most Honourable Privy Council". Choess 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per ProveIt, but still Rename. I think some descriptiveness would still be userful. "of the British Isles", perhaps? - Jc37 16:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A number of countries have or have had Privy Councils. Because of that, all categories about Privy Council membership need to state which country. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least this needs to be moved to "Members of HM Most Honourable Privy Council". The current title is simply wrong. Proteus (Talk) 21:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Jtdirl (FearÉIREANN). --Mais oui! 15:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Middle-Persian

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 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle-Persian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, This actually is more of a move from [[Category:Middle-Persian]] to [[Category:Middle Persian]], since the target category already exists[1]. I apologize that I already created a new category and edited relevant articles. But in my defense, it was a pretty uncontroversial move: all other 'Middle X' articles and categories, such as the article Middle Persian and the category Middle Dutch are hyphenless. –jonsafari 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Landolitan 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hyphenated version, for consistency. Stephen B Streater 21:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Nuts and seeds

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 16:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuts and seeds to Category:Edible nuts and seeds

  • Rename, category only contains edible nuts and seeds, but wihtout the qualifier is ambigious. Peta 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Landolitan 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Three comments:
  1. Under Category:Botany there are no other subcats like this one. I don't believe "Nuts and Seeds" needs to be there - take a look and see what you think.
  2. Under Category:Foods, of course, no other subcat has "Edible". I don't think this one needs it either. Unless this cat goes into a cat where "Inedible" becomes an issue, there's no need to distinguish it as such.
  3. For ease of navigation, I can see a wiki user typing in "nuts and seeds" - I can't see a user typing in "edible".
-- SatyrTN 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom With regard to SatyrTN's comments, 1 and 2 show that this is an unusual category, and should not therefore be treated the same as either a subcategory of category:Foods or a subcategory of Category:Botany. It should be treated as what it is, which is a category for edible nuts and seeds, and named accordingly. As for point 3, there are several ways to access a category, and typing its name in the search box is almost certainly not one of the more commonly used methods. Osomec 18:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Cloachland 23:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for precision. And personally, I can see someone typing "edible nuts" as a search. - Jc37 16:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Television shows set in San Francisco

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 16:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television shows set in San Francisco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • No vote. Found this listing added on August 1 but no discussion from that date. Vegaswikian 06:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a perfectly reasonable category. Wimstead 11:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wimstead. Tim! 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What exactly is wrong with this category? ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonable, well-maintained, useful, etc. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus so far. — Dale Arnett 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. reasonable category. ThuranX 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Two "Official documents" renames

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 16:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soviet official documents to Category:Official documents of the Soviet Union
Category:United States official documents to category:Official documents of the United States
  • Rename, The other two subcats are "Official documents of <country> - these should be as well, per Categories by country, though reading it again makes me wonder if all four subcats shouldn't be named "in <country>"... SatyrTN 05:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom, i.e. using "of", assuming said documents were originated by agencies of those countries; "in" suggests the possibility of other countries' official documents having found their way into the hands of Soviet Union / U.S. / etc agencies, respectively. David Kernow 10:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Chicheley 13:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

More Wikipedians by interest

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 Except for strikeouts and anglophile --Kbdank71 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A crazy-quilt pass through category:Wikipedians by interest, cleaning up to standardized formats starting with “Wikipedian”:

If there are any that incite debate, I can break them out to separate nominations.—Mike Selinker 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I think category:Wikipedian AFOL should change to category:Wikipedian fans of Lego, since that's what the "FOL" stands for. Having a mass change like this seems unnecessarily complicated. — Reinyday, 04:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Fixed to "interested in Lego". Mostly I wanted to get the "adult" part out of that, since it seemed a bit divisive (barring kids from the category, that is). I'd like to limit "fans" to those of sports teams, but that may just be me.—Mike Selinker 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support that, since I always though the acronym was annoying. — Reinyday, 04:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I oppose category:Wikipedians interested in LiveJournal to category:Wikipedian LiveJournalers as that is a totally different meaning. — Reinyday, 04:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reasonable enough. I've withdrawn that one.—Mike Selinker 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fans of xxxxx movie or filmmaker. That is going to get ridiculous quickly. Mrs. Doubtfire? Will the there be a category for every film ever? — Reinyday, 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Weirdly, there are over two dozen Wikipedians who've self-selected into that category. Baffling, sez I.--Mike Selinker
  • Support category:Home movie makers to category:Wikipedian home movie makers. — Reinyday, 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • With category:Wikipedians who own a Series Landrover to category:Wikipedians who drive Series Land Rovers, it's good to change to Land Rover, which is proper, but I think it is better in sungular. — Reinyday, 04:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose all changes of "Wikipedians interested in xxxxx" to "Wikipedians who like xxxxx". They are subcats of Category:Wikipedians by interest. — Reinyday, 04:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Scouting memorabilia collecters rename because Scouting is a proper noun in English and hence it's capitalized. Will not oppose if the new name capitalizes Scouting.Rlevse 10:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Not bothered if a few are tweaked as above. Olborne 10:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Osomec 18:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose category:Users who visited or plans to visit the United Nations to category:Wikipedians who visit the United Nations. The proper rename would be category:Wikipedians who visited or plan to visit the United Nations. "Wikipedians who visit" misleadingly implies habitual action. --M@rēino 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed as requested. Though I do think that's a terrible category title, I agree that users should be able to be in the category they want, and that's what that category is. (Should I add the other categories in Category:Wikipedians who travel, then?)--Mike Selinker 23:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I thought about that one, and decided not to object because everyone "travels" in the loose sense of the word, and the current working policy is to avoid categories for which every wikipedian would be a member. --M@rēino 01:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Why does this feel familiar? :) - LA @ 08:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with a few thoughts:
    • voc is short for vocalist, which is preferrable to singer in this case.
    • One is not a bass, one "sings" bass, or sings in the bass range. Wikipedians who sing in the bass range; soprano range; alto range; tenor range; etc.
    • Wikipedians interested in filmmaking should be the broader category, with Wikipedian filmmakers as a sub-category.
    • Wikipedians interested in cooking should be the broad category, with Wikipedian cooks as a sub-category.
    • Wikipedians who listen to Celtic music -> Wikipedians who like Celtic music.
    • Fan is appropriate when discussing a person (a fan of George Bush), or group of people (a fan of the '85 Chicago Bears). This disambiguates being a fan of the performance of the person (whether in sports, entertainment, politics, or whatever), from actually "liking" the person. (One can be a fan of Michael Jackson, but not be interested in any sort of relationship with him.) So, one is a "fan" of the Three stooges, while the person may or may not "like" the Three Stooges films. The same goes for the other various actors and directors above (Ralph Bakshi, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Ed Wood, the Three Stooges, Devon Werkheiser). - Jc37 16:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, thorough points. My comments:
We have already redirected category:vocalists to category:singers, so I think that train has left the station.
I've withdrawn the bass one--it is more properly dealt with when we deal with category:Wikipedians by musical instrument, one of several big categories which are too confusing for me to suggest recommendations for right now.
There's only one member of category:Wikipedians that are into filming, so it seems like category:Wikipedian filmmakers is the main category to me.
Similarly, I don't see much difference between "interested in cooking" and "cooks" (unless one imagines a large group people who pine, "If I only had a stove!").
All the music ones are currently "listen to", so Celtic music should get that format.
The directors are easy because you can tack on "films" and still use "like," but I must admit Mr. Werkheiser stumped me. A different structure there could be helpful, but I'm still not keen on "fans."--Mike Selinker 19:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Singer vs Vocalist - Connotation issues. One is a performer and the other uses their voice as an instrument. However when looking at the category members, many are singers. I agree that this is something that should be handled when instruments are handled.
The single user has {{User filming}} which has that category included. The user also made the template. If you edit the category of the template, and change the category of Category:Home movie makers, there would be no need for the move.
How about Wikipedians who like cooking? Which is still different than Wikipedians who are professional cooks. (A cook is different than a chef.)
"Fan" is necessary, due to disambiguation (as stated above). But should be limited to a person or persons. A fan of Michael Jackson, vs liking Michael Jackson. - Jc37 19:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that folks in the cooks category are professionals, so "interested in cooking" seems good. You make a good argument on Werkheiser, so I've fixed that. I'm not sure what you're suggesting on filming, but go ahead.--Mike Selinker 20:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I changed the category in the template, and in the home movie category (which had only one user). "into filming" is now empty.
As for cooking: "interested in cooking" sounds like someone who watches from afar. How is Wikipedian Cooks any different than singers, chanters, and all the others -ists? Rename to Wikipedian cooks and it should be fine? - Jc37 01:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Intellectual's who wear blue socks on Thursdays that are Critics of George W. Bush

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 speedy delete Tim! 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Intellectual's who wear blue socks on Thursdays that are Critics of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

  • Delete, No one wears blue socks on Thursdays. This is WP:OR and WP:POV. Intangible 04:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Eluchil404 04:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and in the future, please use proper grammar when creating nonsense. — Reinyday, 04:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment The incorrect spelling was how the user who suggested the cat spelled it. I'm not some 's freak. --Kalmia 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Landolitan 08:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Patent nonsense. This category was probably created as a violation of WP:POINT. --Cswrye 13:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom, besides, Thursday is blue socks for supporters of Bush, TUESDAY is 'blue socks for critics' day.ThuranX 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom (and it reminds me, I need to buy some new socks)Dugwiki 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - "Intellectual's" should be "Intellectuals". Duh. (Just kidding. Delete.) BigDT 17:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cryptohistory

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 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete, Category is a hodgepodge of different conspiracy theories and far out ideas that could be roughly summarized as a POV-fork category. Furthermore, the criterion for inclusion " The category Cryptohistory consists of controversial elements of so called "secret" (hence "Crypto") history that often feature in pseudo-historical writing" is almost incoherent and this shows in what is in the category. For example, the category includes The Illuminatus! Trilogy (a fictional novel), Majestic 12 (a supposed UFO cover up) Atlantis and various other odd and ends. JoshuaZ 03:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as requested. Wimstead 11:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Blueboar 12:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 12:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. WegianWarrior 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dugwiki 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Controversial historical subjects or something similar. The items in the category all have a similar theme. I just can't figure out a better way of putting it. - LA @ 08:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Conspiracy theories. Though I think Conspiracy theories could use some further sub-categorization (something dealing with secret organizations/societies and conspiring people and groups). (Note:The article Cryptohistory redirects to: Historical revisionism.) - Jc37 16:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and split/redefine(if that's a 'vote') I agree with Lady Aleena. There's something interesting about the ideas collected in this category. I see that most have a true 'cryptohistoric' theme to them, but I think that differentiations between the 'fiction', that is, obvious works of fiction with a cryptohistoic theme, like the Illuminatus Trilogy or da Vinci Code, and the 'real', the subjects of genuine investigation by serious people with honest goals, like Atlantis, would benefit from reworking more than outright deletion. Also, a pruning of things repeatedly demonstrated to be outright fiction, and discredited to 98% of people who think for themselves, like the Priory of Sion and the Protocols, should be nixed, or into a third category, like... 'debunked cryptohistories'. ThuranX 06:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWe already have Category:Pseudohistory for this which is already nice broken down into subcats. JoshuaZ 19:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pseudo- and Crypto- are different in meaning and implication. one refers to outright false stuff, like the scientologist's version of human history... (alien probes and stacks of frozen souls) and the controversial or 'secretive' histories that migth have a basis in reality, like pre-columbus discoveries of america, like the Vinnland theory, (yes, i know that was disproved) or Atlantis. (still in the air.) I think half the category has merit ,and it needs a better name and a refining of the list, not a merge to a category based on false history.ThuranX 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_16&oldid=1136105120"