Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 8

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

February 8

edit

Category:Characters

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

The result of the debate was merge. —akghetto talk 07:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:Fictional characters, and it's sub-cats. Of the sub-cats of Category:Characters, two are otherwise well categorized, and the other two are empty. I've opened up dialog with the creator about the two empty ones on the possibility of them being turned into sub-cats for Category:Characters in written fiction, so I'm not nominating them for deletion at this time, just the duplicative parent category. - TexasAndroid 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Delete per nom. Confusing name, at first I though about ASCII characters. Pavel Vozenilek 23:57, 13 February 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:Modern missiles to Category:Guided missiles in current service

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

The result of the debate was rename. —akghetto talk 07:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern" is too vague for identifying the era of missiles. I intend the category to include all missiles still in service. Similar renaming recommendations would apply to all subcategories. GCarty 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Does this mean that when a missle is no longer in service the category changes? How would we keep track of when a tiny country like Foo decides to take a missle out of service forcing the category change? Vegaswikian 01:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. It is admitedly difficult to track when exactly most missiles 'leave' service. It is hard enough with big-ticket items like ships and aircraft, but missiles, especially smaller ones, are like most other military gear, they only truly disappear from service long after they have left useful front-line roles. However, I don't know why we can't still give it a try. I haven't seen anything on this line in ships, aircraft, vehicles, etc., but if it does work, we might learn something towards those as well. Admittedly an experiment, but I'm not opposed to a few of those. Josh 05:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If approved, can someone add an introduction the category stating that it 'only includes missles currently in service for offical governments' or something similar? That would make it easier to track. Vegaswikian 20:01, 14 February 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:LGBT criminals

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto talk 07:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With Category:LGBT murderers and Category:LGBT serial killers now gone, this category is empty. Technically I could wait a couple of days and toss it up for speedy deletion, but given the controversial nature of the whole set. I feel it should go through normal channels. - TexasAndroid 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong delete per the discussion at [1], which I felt was pretty conclusive in the result of its debate, but which apparently didn't satisfy the PC police (or more likely, most just didn't read it) and other fans of this category. The main argument for the existence of this template is completely invalid and full of holes. The argument is that because we have "positive" LGBT categories (LGBT actors, LGBT authors, LGBT athletes, LGBT Christians, LGBT Canadians, LGBT musicians, and LGBT politicians, none of which seem especially "positive" to me (they're just statements of fact!); it's not like we have a "LGBT law-abiders" or "LGBT awesome people" category), we need "negative" LGBT categories (which is rather besides the point, and moreover is an explicit and blatant example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, seeking to preserve a meaningless and misleading category as part of an ongoing campaign to delete LGBT-related categories, rather than going through the proper channels and simply trying to delete all of them, and not keeping the most inappropriate ones out of spite or to try to coerce people into deleting the other, much more appropriate ones. The fact is, we have Category:Roman Catholic actors, but not Category:Roman Catholic criminals, and dozens of other, identical categories (indeed, List of Jewish criminals was deleted precisely because such a list is meaningless, as Judaism has as much to do with criminality as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual does!); why is it perfectly fine to have any other "positive" (or to be realistic: "descriptive and useful") category for religion, ethnicity, etc., but only wrong to have LGBT ones, and so wrong that it merits creating a nonsensical category (as opposed to meaningful and relevant ones like Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality) to promote the destruction of LGBT-related categories? Please, for the love of god, look at the subcategories in Category:Criminals: every single one of them deals with either (1) a specific crime, including arson, theft, drug trafficking, murder, smuggling, perjury, war crimes, terrorism, fraud, and hijacking; or (2) a specific country (Category:Criminals by nationality), which makes complete and absolute sense because what country you live in has a huge impact on whether or not you're a criminal. What's illegal in one time or place isn't illegal in another, and vice versa; nationality (and thus what's illegal) and the specific crime you committed or were convicted of are the only two things directly and obviously relevant to criminality, and that's why they've been the only two subcategorization systems for Category:Criminals for so long. But "Category:LGBT criminals" has violated that perfectly reasonable, useful system, implicitly stating that being LGBT is just as "criminal" as child murder, extortion, genocide, etc. (whereas the valid category for this topic, Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality, makes no such implicit assumption and does not, unlike this category, violate WP:POV!), and in doing so has opened the door for all types of other ridiculous and POVed cross-reference categories, like "Category:Left-handed criminals", "Category:Red-haired criminals", "Category:Libertarian criminals", "Category:Atheist criminals", "Category:Female criminals", etc. This category is a giant leap backwards in Wikipedia's categorization, is not useful (all of the people listed were already categorized under both "Criminals" (by specific crime committed) and "LGBT people", merging these two unrelated categories is a complete waste and leads to unnecessary inconsistencies and POV problems), is being deliberately kept around just to make a point despite its flaws (rather than being kept around for what it can actually contribute to this encyclopedia), and is just plain silly and arbitrary. There's no correlation between sexual orientation and crime for most criminals, and even if there was, it would merit an article or at most a list (since lists, unlike categories, can provide much-needed context, references, etc., and thus avoid all the problems of a contentious category) (though a list would probably end up deleted just like the Jew one was), not a category! There's simply no reason to keep this troublesome thing around any longer; it does not serve the encyclopedia and is misleading, misinformative, and miscategorized, and our readers are better off without it. -Silence 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This whole affair is a tragedy for Wikipedia as it shows that it has no defence against well organised groups of propagandists who have no scruples about using the project to promote their agenda with a shameless commitment to their own bias. The deletion votes for the other categories patently didn't represent the will of a cross section of users. CalJW 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting notion (amusingly devoid of any evidence or reasoning in support of the claim), but if you're done with the conspiracy theories for now, maybe you'd like to actually address the category that's been nominated for deletion? This is a discussion, not a pure numbers-vote, after all; if you have any arguments, make them, don't just denounce the proceedings and storm off or youre "Keep" vote will matter little. Just some advice; I'd prefer for the keep-voters to have some sort of case before I dismantle it, after all the time I put into writing that above ramble. :P -Silence 01:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Emptied and useless, also per Silence. David | Talk 00:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In regards to Bearcat's comments on the LGBT serial killer cat deletion, he made allusions to the fact that there must be a coherent connection between one's homosexuality and one's criminal nature in order for there to be a category tying the two together. That by itself does not present a problem; rather, the problem arises from the seemingly arbitrary way in which it is enforced. There is no valid link between whether one is an actor and one's sexuality, nor is there a valid link between one's race and one's athleticism, therefore we should delete Category:LGBT actors and Category:African American athletes. In addition, the "policy" that Bearcat leans his entire argument on is not actually policy; it's explicitly stated so on Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. I'm not attempting to violate the WP:POINT issue, but there are at least a dozen categories to be deleted if we use this standard in the way it's being used now. Either go one way, or the other way. However, the current path we are heading down will only further a polarization of bias among Wikipedians. Anthony 16:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be associations of LGBT actors thereby making it a cultural phenomenon. If not then I'd support deleting Category:LGBT actors. Likewise if there is a "LGBT criminal" underworld worth discussing I support keeping this. If not then I support delete.--T. Anthony 14:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Intersection of two unrelated traits. Postdlf 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I've been trying to make the points that Silence said but I've done it less eloquently. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not voting yet. I've had a slight change of heart since last this was up and I voted delete. This change came due to stuff at the category talk for this. It seems to me that as LGBT is often viewed as a community maybe it's not inappropriate to have a category for its wayward members. There is Category:Irish-American mobsters, Category:Polish-American mobsters, and a Category:Asian-American mobsters. There's also a Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal which is largely concerned with criminal priests. None of these are put in the main criminal category and if this survives I think it should only be in the LGBT people, or whatever it's called, category. Granted I still have some difficulties. Unlike those other groups I've never heard of any "LGBT" gangs or mobs. Still there are a few criminals whose connection to LGBTism seems kind of valid. Usually they are people who kill others who are of similar situation. If Category:Jewish-American mobsters is not deemed Anti-Semitic maybe there is a way to do this category without bias. Although I'm uncertain it's necessary.--T. Anthony 06:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I am unaware of any scholarly examination of LGBT criminals. This is not a studied topic. This is also not a useful category. What purpose is served other than assisting someone who wants to find justifications for their prejudices. I find the ethnic subdivisions of mobsters to be similar. But in that case, I can imagine that some of the gangs and crime organizations were ethnic associations, and thus ethnicity might be directly relevant. In any event, whether ethnicity is important to mobsters is a separate discussion. The Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal category is not a subcategorization of Category:Church sex abuse scandals by religion but a category of articles grouping articles about a specific scandal, all part of Category:Religious scandals. That scandal relates directly to the Roman Catholic Church because the church has been a party in the resulting suits. It is not just a random collection of church abuse incidents that happened to be by Catholics. I suspect that if this category is deemed worth having, it would lead to more professions being broken into subcats by ethnicity or sexuality. Do we really need or want a category of Italian-American LGBT Biologists? -- Samuel Wantman 21:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other points aside, your argument to delete based on "assisting someone who wants to find justification for their prejudices" is a strawman. If someone is prejudiced against gays, they will do so whether a category on Wikipedia exists or not. Furthermore, if they are so inclined to look up potentially gay criminals, Wikipedia is again not the place they would look. This category exists (ostensibly, and despite the haranguing of those who would delete it simply because it may make LGBT people look bad) as a method of categorization. Just as we have Category:LGBT actors and Category:LGBT athletes, we have this. People raising hell and getting up in arms over this fail to see the purpose and intention of the category is NOT to show that "gays can do bad things too", but rather is simply a category. A category that carries with it a necessarily (and understandably) controversial nature, but I fail to see why this should carry such an albatross simply because it refers to a group of people that are unfairly burdened of carrying a stigma forced upon them by society. Forcing all categorization of sex/race/ethnicity to be connected to a valid scientific study would undo a multitude of categories that exist for the simple purpose of classification. This category is in the same vein as Category:Italian-American sportspeople, as far as I'm concerned, and carries the same scientific credibility: none. However, I would not think anyone would CfD that category... unless they really hate Italians. I've said my piece numerous times before, and I doubt that anyone will be swayed by my opinion, as I've often found Wikipedians to be quite set in their ways and highly resistant to persuasion. However, I would be remiss if I did not at least give it the "old college try", and perhaps convince at least one person of the worthiness of my argument. Fin. Anthony Hit me up... 22:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit - apparently someone DID CfD Italian-American sportspeople, and it had to have been speedy, because there's no trace of it having been moved or placed on the full CfD... which makes me wonder what's going on here... Anthony Hit me up... 23:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was previously CFD'd, and then reposted without authorization via WP:DRV, hence speedy deleted according to CSD general #4. Category:Roman Catholic actors is an unauthorized recreation in violation of a CFD as well; I just haven't had the time to empty and speedy delete it. Postdlf 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really enough LGBT criminals to make this necessary to avoid overcrowding. And there were sex abuse issues in many religions: Anglicans in Australia, Jehovah Witnesses, ISKCON, Buddists, etc. The Catholic one made more news because Catholicism is the largest religious denomination, exempting maybe Sunni Islam, and also it has a more hierarchical structure which makes conspiracy stories more plausible. (Well that and the history of the English speaking world)--T. Anthony 03:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT criminals is a subcategory of Category:Criminals. It is the ONLY subcategory of its kind in the category. There is no Category:Italian-American criminals. The subcategories are TYPES of criminals. If you get people to agree that there are good reasons to have subcategories of criminals by ethnicity (which I would oppose), I would agree that Category:LGBT criminals is on an equal footing. But to say "This category is in the same vein as Category:Italian-American sportspeople" is not correct. Category:LGBT athletes is in the same vein as Category:Italian-American sportspeople. Even if there is to be subcategories by ethnicity or sexuality, there should be some reason for it. There should be something notable about the people in the category that relates to their ethnicity or sexuality. In the future, when being an LGBT athlete is a non-issue, there will be no need for the category. I don't think this is an issue of all or none, but of relevance. I just don't see how Category:LGBT criminals is relevant to anything. The same reasoning would lead me to question the validity of Category:Italian-American sportspeople. I never saw a mention of an athlete in the news because they wrote a book and admitted that their parents were from Italy. -- Samuel Wantman 10:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too vague a category, since what constitutes a criminal in one place or time may not be the same as in another, and since in some places being gay is/was itself a crime. -Seth Mahoney 16:12, 15 February 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:Endemic birds to Category:Endemism in birds

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

The result of the debate was rename. —akghetto talk 07:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting, as this proposal failed to establish consensus, but it is felt that this is due to it running out of time; all of the issues raised in the previous discussion have been addressed, I believe.

The proposed new category covers the whole subject of endemism in birds, not just endemic birds themselves, hence the name is more appropriate. A subcategory exists for restricted-range endemic birds, and one could be set up for non-RR endemics if anyone wishes to, so there is no longer a reason to keep the current name, in my opinion. SP-KP 19:00, 8 February 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:Airports of Washington to Category:Airports in Washington

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

The result of the debate was rename. —akghetto talk 07:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to match the categories for the other states. Golfcam 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rename Dbinder 23:42, 11 February 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:Simpsons guest stars

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

The result of the debate is delete --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is superfluous; it is already a list:List of celebrities on The Simpsons. Similiar category attempts in the past have been deleted. MakeRocketGoNow 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No need for a category when extensive lists already exists. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 17:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Golfcam 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hasn't this been deleted before? -- Krash (Talk) 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Guest-starring on a show is not a proper basis for classifying an article. Postdlf 03:17, 10 February 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:Benedictine orders to Category:Orders following the Benedictine Rule

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

The result of the debate was rename. —akghetto talk 07:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for greater clarity and accuracy (I had already created the new cat before reading the deletion rules through - apologies). Staffelde 14:38, 8 February 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:Child and adolescent rights

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:Children's rights, now empty. User:Lucinor 13:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT this one seems better named. children has varying connotations. Adolescent seems more concrete, whereas child may or maynot include this phase of development. 132.205.45.148 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: logically it may be, but children's rights is internationally used definition. --Lucinor 15:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT For what it's worth, I created this category in the course of expanding the article on Stump v. Sparkman. Linda Sparkman was 15 years old when she was surgically sterilized without, as many believe, anything that remotely resembled due process of law. While a 15-year-old might legally be a child, the plain-English understanding of the word "child" doesn't extend quite that far. In any case, someone has come along and replaced that category on the Stump v. Sparkman page with Category:United States children rights case law which is a sub cat of Category:Children's rights and nicely covers the matter as far as my contribution is concerned. LegalBeagle 22:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should qualify it as 'I don't object deleting this article'? --Lucinor 20:40, 15 February 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:Texas Longhorns basketball players to Category:Texas Longhorns men's basketball players

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To distinguish between men's and women's basketball players — Bellhalla 08:13, 8 February 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:Texas Longhorns basketball to Category:Texas Longhorns men's basketball

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To distinguish between men's and women's basketball team — Bellhalla 08:10, 8 February 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:Texas Lady Longhorns basketball players to Category:Texas Longhorns women's basketball players

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team has not been known by "Lady Longhorns" moniker for several years. — Bellhalla 08:07, 8 February 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:Texas Lady Longhorns basketball to Category:Texas Longhorns women's basketball

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team has not been known by "Lady Longhorns" moniker for several years. — Bellhalla 08:00, 8 February 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:Jewish-American writers

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto talk 07:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A duplicate of Category:Jewish American writers, created in error and now empty.--ThreeAnswers 07:53, 8 February 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:International New Zealand Actors

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto talk 07:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:International New Zealand Actors was apparently created by someone unfamiliar with the method of populating categories; there is a list of actors on the page, but the only article actually assigned to the category is a television series. Delete; there is nothing to merge. There is already a properly created Category:New Zealand actors. Metropolitan90 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per nom. JW 22:18, 9 February 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:Slovakian law

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

The result of the debate was keep Category:Slovak law per naming convention --Kbdank71 14:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Category:Slovak law.

  • Reverse move There should only be one cat; but Category:Slovakian law is a better name for it: indicating that this is the law of the nation Slovakia, rather than (for example) the traditional law of the Slovak people. I would suggest Category:Law of Sloavkia, like most other cats in Category:Slovakia, but this would conflict with the usual form of law cats. Septentrionalis 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, this category should be deleted. "Slovakian" is just a (frequent) misnommer, never used in legal or (correct) formal texts. Slovak means both referring to the country and to the Slovaks - just like the form "Germanian" is not used for the country as opposed to "German" for the ethnicity). Juro 02:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Law of Sloavkia, per Septentrionalis Carlossuarez46 20:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The dominant naming convention in Category:Law by country is "national-adjective law", not "law of country". Slovak, not "Slovakian", is the correct adjective here. Don't reverse-move, and if you really think it should be at "Law of Slovakia", then propose a clear naming convention change that applies equally to all subcategories of Category:Law by country, rather than just throwing this one category out of consistency with the others. I'll slap a {{categoryredirect}} on this anon. Bearcat 05:37, 12 February 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.

College men’s basketball players

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories have all had corresponding women’s categories made for them under Category:College basketball players. These are thus now inaccurate, since not all of the basketball players from those schools are in them. So adding “men’s” seems appropriate. Note these are only the schools where articles exist for both men and women, and where the men’s and women’s team names match exactly. (So, for example, Georgia is not here because the men are Bulldogs and the women are Lady Bulldogs.) So these categories are suggested for renaming:

--Mike Selinker 00:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Added Michigan State and Saint Joseph's.--Mike Selinker 01:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Added all men's programs where women's programs are the same name, even if no women's categories yet exist. (Specifically not Arkansas, Oklahoma State, UNLV and UTEP.)

--Mike Selinker 17:53, 10 February 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.

University of Southern California basketball

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

The result of the debate was not sure what the nomination is, nothing done --Kbdank71 14:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is another school with different nicknames for men and women. I just hopped on to their official athletics site (usctrojans.collegesports.com) and found that my longtime memory was right—"Trojans" is specific to men's teams. Women's athletes are officially known as "Women of Troy". I've just slapped CFRs on all of the categories for basketball at that school. — Dale Arnett 04:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know I've seen the "Women of Troy" thing before, but it seems more of an affectation than the real team name. They at least go back on forth on this web page: [2] Here's a quote (boldface mine): "Meghan Gnekow had a double-double for the Women of Troy after tearing down a key defensive rebound for the Trojans with less than 20 seconds to go in the game." So I think we can go either way, and boy, does "USC Trojans women's basketball players" sound better to me than "USC Women of Troy basketball players". (By the way, Dale, the link you gave is to South Carolina. Please fix it so I can see what you're looking at.)--Mike Selinker 04:29, 8 February 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:Films which influenced Star Wars

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

The result of the debate was delete. —akghetto talk 07:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of information belongs in the Star Wars article. JW 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can predict the endless and pointless debates on what should be included, and this is a rather inappropriate manner to classify any subject. "Influence" is something to be discussed, not something so objective or substantive that it can be used to categorize. I also shudder to think how many such categories landmark films such as Metropolis would have flooding their articles. Postdlf 03:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's perfectly valid to discuss this type of thing in the Star Wars article itself, but it's not an appropriate category. The category system is not the Book of Lists. Bearcat 05:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf. Pavel Vozenilek 00:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dave 00:19, 15 February 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_February_8&oldid=1132030170"