Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 4

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< July 3 July 5 >

July 4 edit

Category:Eglinton West Subway Line 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 (by Bearcat). ×Meegs 01:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category; refers to non-existant subway line in Toronto, Canada. Warrens 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I consider this "kill on sight"; the proposal exists, certainly, but there's no indication at present that this will ever actually exist and thus there's nothing that could be filed in it to date. Consider it speedied. Bearcat 01:19, 5 July 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 most beautiful villages of France 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 to Category:Plus Beaux Villages de France. Conscious 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not comply NPOV. Beautiful with respect to whom? There is already Category:Visitor attractions in France. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 20:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind to Rename per Ziggurat as well. --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 08:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, point. Would you say it's better to list this information as a list-article, or as a category? I'm kinda leaning towards listify in the award's main article + a brief mention at each relevant town/city article. 67.116.68.97 00:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC) I forgot to sign in, apparently. Luna Santin 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify in Les Plus Beaux Villages de France. Every individual award doesn't merit its own winners category. Bearcat 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The leading award in each field does. Articles about French villages are hardly likely to accumulate a large quanity of reward-related categories. Merchbow 05:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Les Plus Beaux Villages de France seems to list all of these already (based on about six or seven random checks) in addition to many articleless villages. ×Meegs 01:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Plus Beaux Villages de France, as this is the formal name for the award. As far as I can tell there's some precedent for not translating awards (c.f. Compasso d'Oro not 'Golden Compass', Croix de guerre not 'War Cross'), especially when there's such possibility of misinterpretation. I'd love to hear any better suggestions if this doesn't suit; at the least the other words could be capitalised to indicate that this is a proper name and not a vague description. I think it should still stand as a category, given that it appears to be a fairly prominent and long-lasting award. Ziggurat 01:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Ziggurat. --TheYmode 02:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Ziggurat. Should definitely be kept as a way of distinguishing between the mass of articles about French villages, most of which are just anonymous names to non locals. Merchbow 05:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Ziggurat. Chicheley 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Peta 02:44, 6 July 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:Towns in Oregon 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 category redirect --William Allen Simpson 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to Missouri, there are no "towns" in Oregon. I have already recategorized all the cities and communities that were in this category. As per this discussion, I think a redirect is the best solution. Katr67 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep complete with explanation that there AREN'T any towns in Oregon, otherwise, it will just get recreated. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Keep the category, but put a clear "Don't use this category" banner in it. See Template:Category redirect. --Elonka 20:53, 4 July 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:Aviation Accidents 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. Conscious 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; duplicates an extensive hierarchy of categories beginning at Category:Accidents and incidents in the aviation sector, subcategories of which break down accidents and incidents by type of aircraft, geographical location, cause of accident, etc. All aviation accident articles are already members of subcategories in that hierarchy. MCB 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created this category after carefully researching the existing categories and lists. I was missing a simple category that would combine all notable aviation accidents world wide (as opposed to including incidents or being limited to some country). I found several categories and lists but nothing that would provide a simple list of all notable global aviation accidents. BTW, the 'notability' is assured by actual inclusion of the article. If there is some other way, using the existing categories or lists, where someone could scan a sorted list of all notable global aviation accidents, and easily navigate from one to the next (as this category allows us), then of course I would support the deletion of this one. Thanks, Crum375 19:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your efforts, but I don't think you quite understand how categories work. What I think you are trying to create is an article, not a category. Wikipedia has a large number of list-type articles which contain links to main articles for the items mentioned in the list. What you have created is a redundant category, and then populated it with articles that fit a criteria that is fundamentally a matter of opinion. Categories are the method of hierarchically organizing the information contained in Wikipedia, not for creating arbitrary navigational groupings such as what you propose. (As for notability, if an accident or incident is too minor to be notable, it should not have an article in Wikipedia in the first place.) --MCB 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding my 'misunderstanding': as I understand it, a category is like a key in a database, it allows the user easy access to like-themed and related-themed articles. So if a user reads about roses, and then notices it's part of the 'flowers' category, he/she can easily click on the 'flowers' category link at the bottom of 'roses' article, see all the other flower articles listed in a sorted fashion on the category page, and then easily move on to any other flower article by simple clicking. This does not require a 'list' article - this is a natural and extremely useful by-product of having an online encyclopedia. Now similarly in our case-in-point of aviation accidents, if the user reads about a specific aviation accident article X and notes that it is part of the broad category 'aviation accidents', he/she can easily click on the category link at the bottom, and see all other aviation accidents sorted next to this article, each one click away for easy perusal. This category is specifically for accidents, which excludes incidents, and specifically global, not limited to a single country or region. As I noted before, if there is already some other mechanism to achieve the simple and useful functionality that I just described, please explain to me how to do it, and if it's there and easy to use, I'll support deletion of this category. Now as far as notability, you may have misunderstood what I said. What I said was that the category implicitly is for notable accidents, since by their very inclusion criterion in WP the accident articles must be notable. Crum375 23:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list you mention is not useful on several levels. One, even by definition, it includes incidents, which is not what accidents is focusing on. As such it dilutes the information and makes it much less useful (nearly useless in fact) for someone interested in accidents only. Two, a list in general is an artificial article that is composed by hand. It is never quite up to date, and is very subjective and prone to errors. A simple computer-driven categorization is always up to date, objective and is extremely reliable. Also, a list includes commentary which adds unnecessary bulk and clutter for someone just looking for an index of same-themed articles and no more. In our particular case, the list you mention is highly subjective and woefully inadequate for all these reasons (however I myself have been adding to this list and improving it as it serves other useful purposes). Thanks, Crum375 12:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like thousands of others this subject area needs to be broken down. The current population of this article is POV. Merchbow 05:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Calsicol 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant and POV. Merchbow 05:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chicheley 10:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but rename to have a small 'a' for accidents). This is a useful distinction to make. I too have wanted a category that listed incidents where there is major damage/death, as opposed to incidents (such as near misses or forced landings). Also, I think what people would want is a list of those accidents where the plane is destroyed and all (or nearly all) the people on board die. That is what most people would be looking for in a category of airplane accidents. At the moment, the category structure is set up to include minor incidents that should be separated out from the major stuff. Difficult to draw the line, but a distinction does exist, so it is lazy just to give up and say this is a POV category! Carcharoth 11:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problems with that, I think, are twofold:
  1. Why would "Aviation accidents" necessarily mean "those accidents where the plane is destroyed and all (or nearly all) the people on board die"? It may mean that to you, but it seems unlikely that it means that to most people, by analogy to (say) "Automobile accidents", some of which are fatal and destroy the vehicle, and some of which are not;
  2. How can one possible determine in a NPOV way which accidents belong in the category? Would a single fatality count? Or a majority? Or only "nearly all" (and if so, what exactly does that mean)? Would this include general aviation accidents, or only airliners? (If the latter, how would one know from the title)?
What I'm trying to express is that the current hierarchical structure is well-thought-out, and the type information that I think you and the category creator are looking for can best be brought together in an article like List of major aviation disasters or similar. --MCB 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation Accident investigation is a science. The NTSB, which investigates thousands of accidents each year (along with the FAA), has clearly defined the meaning of 'aviation accident', as you can see also in the Category page:[1][2]

"An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage."

Trying to redefine a clearly defined a scientific and legal term on WP would not be productive, and the NTSB legally and specifically categorizes each occurfence as an accident or incident, so there is no wiggle room for POVness. BTW, 'disaster' is not a recognized legal or scientific term in aviation accident investigation.
The 'current hierachical structure' as you call it does not allow the simple functionality that I described: you cannot click on the accident article's category link at the bottom of the article page, and jump into a simple indexed list of all other global aviation accidents, from which you can click on any entry and see its article. This functionality is extremely useful and simple to use. By removing this category you basically are left with multiple navigation steps and clicks and in fact can never see the information presented side by side in this simple and accessible fashion. Thanks, Crum375 19:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is not a U.S.-centric encyclopedia. The NTSB definition is a "term of art", that is, a technical/legal usage of an ordinary phrase. Such things are useful among professionals in the field, but tend to be confusing to laymen, who are familiar with the common usage of the phrase, but not its use as a term of art. This would especially be true for Wikipedia readers outside the U.S.
Secondly, as is apparent from the comments by Carcharoth, there are already conflicting definitions here among proponents of the new category. You propose that it contain "accidents" as defined by the NTSB, which requires only death/serious injury of a person or substantial damage to an aircraft, while Carcharoth wants the category to contain articles on "those accidents where the plane is destroyed and all (or nearly all) the people on board die". Those are not the same thing, and other readers and editors will have yet different expectations. That is one of the reasons that Wikipedia practice is not to rely on "clearly defined ... scientific and legal term[s]" but instead on widespread common usage of terms and phrases among Wikipedia's international readership of non-experts. --MCB 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ICAO definition is here which is essentially the same as the NTSB, with more fleshed-in details. My understanding is that it is the local government which investigates each event, that determines its classification, so in any case it is always pre-decided. And this responds to both your issues above regarding the international aspects of WP as well as the 'common usage' of terminology. The ICAO is international and the world has a pretty stable and consistent mechanism for aviation accident investigation, regardless of where they occur (of course if they happen inside North Korea odds are they won't be so easy to track and evaluate, but nothing is ever perfect in life). As far as the usage issue, we are not dealing with a discrepancy between 'common usage' vs. 'expert usage'. The 'accident' designation is made by the local government for each specific event, and leaves us no leeway in the matter. Sure there are people who would get the concepts confused, but good news media reporters and editors would be careful to make the distinction, and in confusion vs. official usage (for a specific event) I would think official should win. Thanks, Crum375 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redudant means you have another way of achieving this simple functionality of navigating through an index of all global aviation accidents? If there is such a way, I am waiting to see it and will change my vote to Delete. Thanks, Crum375 19:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the issues raised of POV and Redundancy.
  1. For the POV point to be valid, there would have to be some showing of lack of neutrality or some wiggle-space for WP editors. In this case, the category relies on the criterion of aviation accident which is a well defined scientific and legal term (e.g. see here). In fact, every single case investigated by the FAA or NTSB (they share the duties sometimes) must be designated a priori as either 'accident' or 'incident', since each merits a separate handling procedure. Granted, many accidents are outside of the US but I believe the ICAO relies on the same definitions, and the NTSB is often party to foreigh investigations as well. So arguing about this issue is akin to arguing about the height of a structure, it is well defined.
  2. For the redundancy issue, I have yet to hear someone explain how we can obtain the simple functionality of being able to click on the category link of an aviation accident article, jump into the sorted index listing of all global aviation accidents, then click to examine any other item on that list. If the list includes incidents it would be cluttered and diluted beyond hope, if it is a hypothetical list article, it would be a maintenance hog and unreliable, and will not automatically include all articles designated as 'aviation accident'. It would also have (as do most lists) added text per entry that would increase the clutter factor and impede simple navigation ability. In any case, right now there is no such list, and making it will be non-trivial and essentially duplicating the functionality automatically and reliably provided by this category.
Thanks, Crum375 20:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would anyone more au fait with the topic list a handful of distinguishable types of aviation "incident" or "accident"?  I guess those involving fatalities and those not is a basic distinction. Thanks, David Kernow 21:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat the NTSB definition for an aviation accident:

    "An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage."

The distinction is that for it to be defined an accident at least one of 3 things is needed:
  1. A fatality;
  2. A serious injury (as defined elsewhere); or
  3. Substantial damage to the aircraft (as defined elsewhere)
In any case, it is the government that ends up classifying the case as accident or incident, so it is not left as speculation afterwards.
Of course many incidents are non-notable (and hence would be below the WP radar), but many are, such as highjackings (that end without damage or injuries), e.g. Japan Airlines Flight 472. Or even the famous Gimli Glider. Lots others exist of course. Crum375 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not worth the trouble and confusion it will cause. Golfcam 02:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain what kind of trouble and confusion it will cause? Crum375 02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The confusion that I see (and it has already been seen in this CfD discussion) is that very few people are familiar with the narrow and technical definition of "aviation accident" that you consider to be the criterion for inclusion in the category. The vast majority will simply use it in the colloquial sense, analogous to "automobile accident", and will add articles to it based on their own definition, which will then have to be reverted, and in many cases there will be a mini-edit war, with multiple editors quoting your definition, and others citing the colloquial definition. I have seen similar issues on Wikipedia, and that is why (as I wrote above), it's a bad idea to try to impose the use of a term of art in its technical/legal sense (as opposed to its colloquial sense) as a category title or an article title. Simply repeating the NTSB definition, really, is not a convincing argument. --MCB 04:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I specifically included the NTSB (maybe we should add ICAO) on the top of the Category page. When there is any question about cat inclusion, the cat page guidelines are the key. I see no room for 'edit wars' as the determination of accident/incident is officially made for each specific event by the local government, so that would not be the issue. If some editor does have a mistake about the category it's not a big deal to fix it, and again no edit warring as we defined clearly on the top of the cat page its inclusion criterion (and debate it, if necessary, at the overall cat level, not per article). Crum375 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MCB, your argument here makes no sense, as you are arguing to keep a category whose name "Accident and incidents...." already makes this distinction. If anything, the category name "Aviation accidents" will avoid this, but then this would in most people's mind exclude terrorist acts as not being "accidents", but being deliberate. How about "Aircraft crashes", with a separate category for incidents and accidents that aren't crashes? And the whole category needs overhauling anyway, as there is only partial categorisation by location (both geographical and also by "in flight" and "on ground" incidents), no categorisation by date, and insufficient categorisation by type. People may also want to distinguish between airplane crashes and helicopter and other aircraft crashes. The Hindenberg disaster should be in there somewhere, but I can't find it. Carcharoth 10:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, looking at Category:Accidents_and_incidents_in_the_aviation_sector, I see that that subcategory is well-organised. But I wouldn't have expected to have to dig down a level to find that. Ther should be a top-level division between the categories given under the "commercial airliners" category. ie. A category for all mid-air crashes regardless of type, one for all pilot error aviation incidents, etc. Carcharoth 10:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Mid air crash' is not such a good criterion since it is not officially defined, and would exclude the Tenerife case (the largest crash/accident in history of aviation). In fact most crashes are with the ground, i.e. not in mid air. Collisions do occur in mid air, but they are relatively few (though always sensational). All I need here is a simple category (with its related index) of 'Aviation Accidents'. It is well defined, per event by local government, and would allow us to easily review and navigate to all accidents. Adding 'incidents' or limiting to local countries vastly reduces its usefulness. Thanks, Crum375 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a category containing all the accidents would be good, but you are touching on the issue of whether to subcatgorise or not, which is often tricky. Some people will be happy with a category contining thousands of articles. Others will want to navigate towards a smaller subgrouping. Carcharoth 14:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the mid-air crashes, I seemed to have slipped from saying "in flight" to saying "mid air", which was a mistake. Mid-air very rare, I agree, but there is a useful distinction to draw between accidents that happen after take-off, and those that happen before take-off, or after landing. And I also linked to the wrong subcategory above. The "well organised" category I should have linked to was Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners. That has the following subdivisions by cause (if known):
  • Air Traffic Controller error
  • Bird strikes
  • Controlled fllight into terrain
  • Deliberate (usually terrorism)
  • In-flight explosions
  • In-flight fires
  • Ran out of fuel
  • Ground collisions
  • Hijackings
  • Instrument failures
  • Mechanical failures
  • Mid-air crashes
  • Pilot error
  • Pilot incapacitation
  • Shot down
  • Structural failures
  • Bad weather
I find a division into subcategories like this to be useful, but it would also be good to have all the accidents listed in the parent category, so all those subcategories should be lumped into a "by cause" parent category, and all the accidents and incidents listed in the "commercial airliners category". Carcharoth 14:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[outdent]My problem again is with the inclusion of 'incidents' which from my perspective clutters and dilutes the index so much that it would not be useful. What I am looking for is just a simple way to see an index of worldwide aviation accidents, to be able to compare them and navigate from one to the other. Accidents is where there are serious consequences, wereas incidents end up with only a scare. There is a big difference between them and lumping them both in a one big pile is not good. Crum375 14:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that incidents should be separated out from accidents. I also think the definition shouldn't stick rigidly to the one from that big aviation accidents and incidents database thingy. That lists everything. Many of those incidents won't be notable enough for Wikipedia. Carcharoth 15:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By 'thingy' you mean the list article or the category? Either one is problematic IMO at the moment. The whole topic is problematic/messy/inconsistent because we currently have at least these competing/overlapping/different collections:
  1. Aviation accident - article on accidents and incidents, redirected from 'accident' only into both (creating confusion), that includes a list of 'selected' accidents embedded inside a section Well known aviation accidents - some entries are short and list-like, others are very detailed and far longer than many individual articles, selection criteria are unclear
  2. List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft - list article that includes many selected accidents and incidents
  3. Category:Accidents and incidents in the aviation sector - a category that includes incidents, currently poorly populated
and I may have missed a few. In comparison, Aviation Accident cat is well defined and clearly focused on accidents only. In general, it's clear there is a problem with these lists that people tend to do drive-by editing and add one more item into, without thought or care about the overall structure. At least a well defined category (with its inclusion criteria clearly defined on the top of its page) can help create a more objective (but simple) index. A good index can lead to consistency and standardization by caring editors who can scan the index and validate each included article for consistency. Crum375 16:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the best thing to do is to work in some user space or WikiProject space with a list of articles, and list the criteria by which you want to categorise them. Plan the category structure, and then overhaul the existing structure. Doing it piecemeal might seem to be the wiki-way, but someone will object and in all likelihood not understand what you are trying to do unless you have a plan you can point at. Carcharoth 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle with what you say. But in this specific situation, the existing status of the articles, lists and cats of Aviation Accidents is somewhat lacking (as an understatement). You could argue, "let's fix it!" - and that's in fact what I am trying to do. I think that by adding the simple Category:Aviation Accidents cat, with a well defined inclusion criterion stated at the top of its page, we are actually building a strong platform from which we can start cleaning up the present mess. Categories for contentious issues are always problematic, and with litigation following most or many aviation accidents even more so. In this case the simple category with a clear government-issued inclusion criterion allows a good basis for review, comparison and consistency checking of all aviation accident articles. It would be a shame to lose this clean and easy mechanism which already exists, for some future restructuring endeavor which has yet to be fully thought out. Thanks, Crum375 17:32, 6 July 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:Alburg, Vermont to Category:Alburgh, Vermont 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 category redirect --William Allen Simpson 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The town of Alburg, Vermont has recently changed its name to Alburgh, Vermont (with an 'h'). [3] The category should be changed to reflect this.Cbvt 13:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. The name change is confirmed. [4]. Or just create the new category, and put Template:Category redirect in the old one. --Elonka 20:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep and redirect to new name. People searching for the old one will likely not now the new one.Mickmaguire 17:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and category redirect. BoojiBoy 20:36, 5 July 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:Apple litigation to Category:Apple Computer litigation or Category:Litigation of Apple Computer 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. ×Meegs 01:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badly named category, as Apple Computer is not the only Apple, and the category is even used on the very case which demonstrates this - Apple Corps v. Apple Computer! Furthermore, the category's parent is Category:Apple Computer not Category:Apple. I propose renaming to Category:Apple Computer litigation or Category:Litigation of Apple Computer kingboyk 09:45, 4 July 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:Singapore TV Artists to Category:Singaporean television artists 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 to Category:Singaporean television personalities. Conscious 15:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore -> Singaporean to fit with other Singaporean people categories (see subcats of Category:Singaporean people); Singapore TV is not the name of a particular TV station, so expand abbreviation; de-capitalise "Artists". RobertG ♬ talk 09:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My new word for the day. Thanks!  David Kernow 15:46, 5 July 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:Popular musical groups and Category:American popular musical groups 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. Conscious 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be deleted as artists shouldn't be categorized into popular music categories as "popular" music is any style of music that is popular which makes inclusion POV and too broad. The category for the actual genre (pop music) already exists at Category:Pop music groups. --Musicpvm 07:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some value to a category of this sort, but we need an objective criteria for inclusion -- say, "sold X-million records" or something to that effect that anybody can think of. Possibly a rename, to match. Luna Santin 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such a criteria would be biased towards groups from large countries and record sales claims are notoriously unreliable. It isn't work the effort as there is little chance of an acceptable level of consistency being attained. Calsicol 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Calsicol 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unnecessary duplication of "pop music" categories. Bearcat 01:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confusing duplication and/or POV. Merchbow 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chicheley 10:23, 5 July 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.

userboxes to user templates 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 all. Conscious 15:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Card game userboxes to Category:Card game user templates

Other subcategories of Category:User templates use "user templates" and not "userboxes" in their names. Renaming this one would match it to the others. —Mira 06:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Naming consistency is important. Good catch. Luna Santin 08:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions by Lady Aleena

Category:Political parties userboxes to Category:Political parties user templates
Category:Battlestar Galactica userboxes to Category:Battlestar Galactica user templates
Category:Doctor Who userboxes to Category:Doctor Who user templates

Same as MiraLuka's reason.
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 12:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harry Potter House Userboxes to Category:Harry Potter user templates - to bring name in line and broaden category. -LA @ 13:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Star Wars Userboxes to Category:Star Wars user templates - Tagged, but not listed here. —Mira 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all listed above per nom. --Musicpvm 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 01:23, 10 July 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:Ayyubids to Category:Ayyubid dynasty 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match main article. Chicheley 05:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, also to be more specific. Makes it more clear what we're talking about. Luna Santin 08:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This will make it more consistent with other subcategories of Category:Royal families. --Elonka 20:49, 4 July 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:Habsburg to Category:House of Habsburg 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, plus rename Category:Habsburg-Lorraine to Category:House of Habsburg-Lorraine. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Habsburg" on its own is awkward, and more appropriate for a category for a place called Habsburg. The form "House of " is used for many ruling families Sumahoy 04:41, 4 July 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:Uncyclopedians to Category:Wikipedians on Uncyclopedia 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 merge. Conscious 15:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're both for users pages, so they should be merged into the category name with the word "Wikipedians" per category naming conventions. --Musicpvm 01:41, 4 July 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:Herbivorous dinosaurs 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 --William Allen Simpson 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at WikiProject Dinosaurs and the subsequent deletion of Category:Carnivorous dinosaurs. Cat only ever had two articles, both recently removed. Ziggurat 01:35, 4 July 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.

Captains 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 all --William Allen Simpson 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category:Captains
  • Category:Captains by nationality
  • Category:British captains
  • Category:Mexican captains
  • Delete: Does not specify what type of captain - civilian ship captain? naval ship captain? airline captain? army captain? captain of industry? team captain? The criteria are not given, and the categories are virtually empty. There is a fictional captain category as a sub category that I have not listed for deletion. It has a number of articles, but perhaps it should be renamed, or have better criteria for inclusion listed. Nobunaga24 01:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Military people below general should just be divided into officers and other ranks. Osomec 01:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I agree. There is also a Lieutenant Colonel category, and a colonel category too, which I will list later --Nobunaga24 01:35, 4 July 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_July_4&oldid=1136104521"