Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 17

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< June 16 June 18 >

June 17 edit

Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression to Category:Persons who have suffered from depression 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 mainly per argument of JeffW. the wub "?!" 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy renames after objection Grutness...wha? 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would open up the Category to those persons not formally diagnosed with "clinical" depression, but were known to have suffered periods of serious mood depression. Michael David 13:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problems in this case, as it is with most (if not all) of the persons now listed in this Category are the words “diagnosed” & “clinical”. There is a significant difference between a person suffering from the mood of depression, and one who has been properly examined by a mental health professional and found to be ‘clinically depressed.’

I agree with the idea of the Category. There is a benefit to a person suffering from a particular mental, emotional, or physical illness to be able to read about others who suffer, or have suffered, from the same condition and realize they are not alone. And, in many cases, read about persons who have gotten well. This, I feel, is one of the benefits of the Wiki Category system.

I believe the problem in this case is in the wording of the Category. If it read: ‘Persons who have suffered from depression’ I believe it could work. To label someone as having been ‘clinically diagnosed’ with any disorder without substantiated proof is doing a disservice to the person. It can also be legally tricky. Michael David 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • that isnt a speedying criterion - this should be movedto the main debate. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is encyclopedic about this? Wikipedia is not in the business of helping people with their personal problems. It's a fine thing to help people out in that way, but it isn't what encyclopedias are for. The category apparently has a lot of problems under any name, to which I would add that people have only been diagnosed with depression in the fairly recent past, so that requirement creates historical distortion. ReeseM 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Depression can be a major factor in a person's life. When that person is notable it is totally appropriate to categorize them accordingly. The benefit that readers may derive is not just personal but historical and encylcopedic. It can be stated in the category description that diagnosis is a relatively recent occurance; for comparison, so is much of astrophysics, but that doesn't rule out inclusion in Wikipedia. CovenantD 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure whether this person means Keep as in don't delete or Keep as in don't rename. --JeffW 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a category this needs firm inclusion criteria and undiagnosed depression isn't definite enough. Those people who may have suffered undiagnosed depression would be better served by a list where the reasoning behind the armchair diagnosis could be explained. --JeffW 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cover songs and subcategories 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 proceed per nomination. the wub "?!" 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the deletion vote on Singles by artist, I think these need to go too. This is what I think should happen:

I made sure that every song in these categories has an actual artist category.--Mike Selinker 22:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Could get out of control. ReeseM 03:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Find me a notable pop song that hasn't been covered by someone somewhere. Flowerparty☀ 10:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no reason to have separate categories for covers. --Musicpvm 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 'list of deletions' — cute, but essentially useless.
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:American Baptists to Category:Baptists from the United States edit

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this, but it has been pointed out to me that "American Baptist" has a specific meaning. Broadly Baptists from the United States are divided into American Baptists (which includes two organizations) and Southern Baptists. There are a lot of Americans in Category:Baptists, but the articles don't very often make it clear which denomination they belong too so it will be easier to retain only one category, but it needs to be renamed Chicheley 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

Category:Egyptian revolutionary figures to Category:Egyptian revolutionaries 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. RobertG ♬ talk 09:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All but this category in Category:Revolutionaries by nationality follow the format of 'country's adjective revolutionaries'. Why figures here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This qualifies for a speedy rename, does it not? BoojiBoy 18:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Athenaeum 21:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. ReeseM 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and speedy per above. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) rename per nom. David Kernow 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Polish social activists to Category:Polish activists 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exception to the format of 'country's adjective activists' with the inclusion of the word social. See Category:Activists by nationality - there is no need for the word social here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Athenaeum 21:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Jacek Kendysz 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This sounds like a subcategory, but if there is no parent category, it doesn't seem to make sense at this time to subcategorize. Luna Santin 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Osomec 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


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 both. the wub "?!" 07:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States ambassadors to the Republic of China edit

listified and now empty, and

Category:United States ambassadors to the People's Republic of China edit

listified and awaiting emptying

  • Delete -- These are the only remaining two categories that should be lists, relatively recent creations contrary to recent discussion about the lists category. The decision was to keep the lists category. While listifying, I found a couple of serious miscategorizations. Lists better organize this information, and missing entries are easily identified for future articles. --William Allen Simpson 17:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case anybody's confused, "ROC" refers to Taiwan and "PRC" refers to mainland China... all sorts of fun history and debate, there, of course. But, if it's listified, it doesn't seem to need a category. Good catch. My only question is: is there a reason the list articles use "Ambassador" instead of "ambassadors"? My read on that is that we're then referring to the office itself, with a proper noun. So long as it fits into existing naming consistency (if any consistency exists), I have no complaint, though. Luna Santin 04:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, some of them were merged between histories of the ambassadorship, and the list of ambassadors themselves. The top of the article has the history, the bottom the list. Whomever did it made them all consistently named, and so I've just followed the naming convention. --William Allen Simpson 06:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not yet seen or heard a good reason why the category for ambassadors should not be further broken down by country. If it is organized that way, then the category (for example, U.S. Ambassadors to the PRC) can be in both Cat:U.S. Ambassadors as well as Cat:Foreign relations of the PRC. Paul 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to this history, PaulHanson is the person that created these two categories, contrary to prior consensus. --William Allen Simpson 11:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Yale University units 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 Category:Yale University units since it has already been split and emptied. Delete Category:New York University units once something similar is done with it, but keep until then. the wub "?!" 07:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yale University units, Category:New York University units and any other University "unit" classification: Universities don't consist of "units". Universities have schools. They have buildings. They have departments. They have libraries. They have any number of other things that might usefully be classifications. "Units" is not one of them. Adding "unit" to the name adds nothing to the category. - Nunh-huh 15:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed. The nominator is correct that universities don't have "units" per se, but this category exists to classify the major divisions of a university (i.e., its schools and libraries.) This is akin to the subsidiaries or divisions of a corporation, or bureaus within a government department (see for example Category:United States Department of Defense agencies.) Paul 17:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the Department of Defense actually has things called "agencies", and other things are not lumped in with them; neither Yale nor New York University has "units". Rather than classify according to the divisions actually used (Schools of Yale University, Libraries of Yale University), which would actually be useful categories, you've substituted your judgement of what constitutes a "unit" to produce a classification that no one actually uses, lumps disparate things together, and can't conceivably be useful to anyone. - Nunh-huh 00:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't substitute anything for anything. "Unit" is a generic term for a university's operating division (just like "agency" is a generic term for a governmental operating division.) If there are enough articles to warrant a category for "schools" or "libraries," then by all means create it. I don't think anyone is going to be confused by the term "unit," and it serves the purpose of grouping similar items into a category. Paul 02:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Unit" is, in fact, your term, not that used by universities. - Nunh-huh 02:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nunh, please remain civil and avoid directly attacking other editors. You appear to be proposing a renaming of the category, more than a deletion? If so, to what? Category:Yale University schools and departments, or something akin to that? Luna Santin 04:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been perfectly civil, and I've attacked no one. I'm suggesting that the category is useless, and shouldn't be renamed. A school is part of a university, a department is part of a school. They are separate things, hierarchically related, not things that should simply be lumped together. As a single category, it's useless. It needs to be replaced by several categories organically flowing from the actual organization of a university. There's no reason to group departments, facilities, buildings, schools, libraries, administration, etc. together, as they are fundamentally different things. - Nunh-huh 06:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take your previous post(s) here, "Unit is your term." It might have been more polite to say, "But Yale doesn't organize itself that way," avoiding what I see as both the condescending, confrontational tone and the explicit statements that the contributions of other editors are "useless." But, to respond to your other point... that's a thought. I'm not sure how much material we have on Yale -- if there's not all that much, it might not make sense to give each school a category, but if each school does have a volume of articles (or if such a volume is expected in the future), it might make more sense to subcategorize further. Personally, I tend to judge the need for subcategorization based on the number of articles to be divided up. Luna Santin 07:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've said nothing that wasn't civil, and I have made no statement that "the contributions of other editors are useless". I've said this category is useless. And it is. Perhaps the categorization should be left to people who know how the schools are organized, or who know how many articles there are to be divided up. But this particular category has no place in any conceivable rationally organizational schema. Which is why it's listed for deletion. - Nunh-huh 07:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd bet money that a better categorization scheme could be devised, but at present no alternative appears to be available (someone should create that, I readily admit I don't have the knowledge). As regards my opinion of your attitude, I feel you've been nothing but condescending. The category itself is an editor's contribution, and we need not add insults to injury of deletion. But, this vein of discussion is pointless because we'll never convince each other and isn't topical to CfD; perhaps I shouldn't have started it here, and I doubt I'll continue it beyond this. Feel free to have the last word if you so desire. Luna Santin 08:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, a good classification scheme will be devised when the deletion of this category clears the way for it. - Nunh-huh 12:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think Nunh-huh is guilty of being uncivil or condescending, and in fact I agree with his statements completely. Luna Santin is also correct that a better scheme probably could be devised, but at present, there's no better proposal, and "units" serves the purpose more or less good enough. If there were enough articles to create categories for "libraries," "schools," "research institutes," and whatever else, then of course it should be organized that way...however it appears that there are not, so "unit" is the best catch-all term to use here. (Incidentally, not all universities/colleges' divisions are similarly organized or name, another reason to use a generic catch-all term.) Paul 18:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • That raises the question: how many items are needed before a class becomes necessary? (Is there a guideline on this?) In any case, if there are enough items for "Category:Yale University units", and every item listed in it is a school of Yale University, then there are enough items for "Category:Yale University schools". There are also several schools not listed in the "units" category that could be added to the "school" category. - Nunh-huh 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Cars and stuff edit

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

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automobile. This is a motor. However, a certain Wikipedia demographic has expressed a distaste for the word "automobile". Since consistency is a virtue, doubly so in the case of categories, which don't behave like normal pages on this site, and since this is not an automobile either, but was probably made by a subsidiary of a company that also does "cars", and since I am confident that "motor vehicle" is a neutral, unambiguous, and all-encompassing term we can all agree upon, I propose that we change the following categories:

Furthermore, I propose we get rid of Category:Automobile manufacturers of Africa, because it contains only one article, El Nasr Automotive Manufacturing Company, which is already a member of Category:Automobile manufacturers of Egypt, and because "Automobile manufacturers of Africa" is inappropriate as a subcategory of "Automobile manufacturers by country", Africa, of course, being a continent. — Jun. 17, '06 [15:40] freak|talk>

  • Whatever, so long as it's consistent. I don't particularly see what's better about "Motor vehicle" over "Automobile", but if that stops the whining about idosyncratic terms, go for it. I totally agree ... the name "Motor manufacturers" is utterly unacceptable when you're talking about motor vehicles. --Cyde↔Weys 17:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usual Wikipedia policy is to use whatever is the local name, so that would mean rename the bold ones to "Motor vehicle manufacturer" and keep the others at "Automobile". BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I this I agree to this limited Rename. If you eliminate Automobile then you automatically include truck manufacturers in the same category. I think it makes sense to not combine those two, or imply they that are combined, as they would be from this suggested new group of categories. Vegaswikian 15:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Athenaeum 21:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I agree with BL's comment (compare the soccer/football categories, and the transport/transportation ones), if there is a wish for uniformity then the overall rename as suggested is fine. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. ReeseM 03:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename all as proposed! --William Allen Simpson 06:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as proposed iff no local objections - lets try and settle this. Ian3055 13:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Subcategories can be created for trucks if it is important to separate them, but I'm not sure that it is. Sumahoy 02:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This will create a structure that will look like this, leaving out most of the categories that exist to keep this short:
      Vehicle manufacturing companies
      Kart manufacturers
      Streetcar Builders
      Motor vehicle manufacturers (including automobiles)
      Truck manufacturers
      Motorcycle manufacturers
      So this looks like we are adding a level in the structure without any gain and leaving automobiles as the major vehicle without a subcat. Vegaswikian 05:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely karts belong in Motor vehicle manufacturers. The other categories of vehicle manufacturers would be things like boat and airplane manufacturers. Osomec 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Osomec 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as proposed Tibi08 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Motor vehicle sounds like a very American term, if you ask me (I lived there for a few years and I've never heard of any motor vee-khee-kls before coming to the US). Cars as we know them have always been known as automobiles (well, at least in Europe). But hey, looks like I'm in a minority here :). KNewman 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Professional wrestling deaths before the age of 65 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 --William Allen Simpson 08:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, we had decided against classifying by age of death... -- ProveIt (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should just create sub-categories of the "Entertainers who died in their #0s"--Darren Jowalsen 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete all the "entertainers who died..." categories as well. Athenaeum 21:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary cutoff = limited usefulness. --zenohockey 03:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per zenohockey. King rich 13:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of all the pro-delete comments I've read above, I have yet to met one reason which wasn't POV. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean others won't. At least this category is factual unlike some articles like Films considered the worst ever which is strictly based on opinions.Farine 18 June 2006
    • POV is not prohibited on Wikipedia pages, indeed it is the essence of Wikipedia namespace pages. Sumahoy 01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but make cats like User:Darren Jowalsen said, possibly. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles have too many death-related categories already. Sumahoy 01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Osomec 16:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete there are already categories saying 'entertainers who died in there 30's,ect.there is no need for this category.after deletion we whould move them to thier correct age group deaths e.g. a wrestler who died at 35 to 'entertainers who dies in thier 30's'.I will marry gollum one day 02:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per zenohockey; "65" is a fairly ethnocentric cut-off, given that the life expectancy in many countries is far below this age. McPhail 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Former United States Ambassadors to the United Nations 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. the wub "?!" 07:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This was boldly created during the recent discussion about the lists category. The decision was to keep the lists category. This category duplicates the existing list: United States Ambassador to the United Nations. --William Allen Simpson 15:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Death Row to Category:Death Row artists edit

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match other members of Category:Performers by record label -- ProveIt (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Lancer Fans 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 --William Allen Simpson 08:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category for fans of a high school team? The light leaving WP:N won't reach this for several years. BoojiBoy 14:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A high school in a town of only 15,000-odd people, no less. --zenohockey 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 16:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Former Burger King employee 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 --William Allen Simpson 08:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? -- ProveIt (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a whopper of a strong delete. BoojiBoy 14:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is going overboard.--SomeStranger(t|c) 17:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not worthwhile. Athenaeum 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ReeseM 03:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is really ridiculous. The single entry is Dana Cook, a comedian, and former Burger King employee. He has some Burger King jokes. Do this instead if you want: put a "Burger King Humor-Dana Cook" link on the Burger King article. But a new category - no, no, no. KKong 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Silly category. King rich 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Period. Farine 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Dane Cook is funny and all, but delete anyway. Paul 23:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous heights of silliness.
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:Indian ethnicity stubs to Category:Ethnic group in India stubs 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 refer to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. the wub "?!" 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian ethnicity" is ambiguous, and could refer to ethnic groups in India, or to groups descending from those originally from India but now present in other countries. Proposal is to rename this category along the lines of Category:Ethnic groups in India and Category:Ethnic group in Africa stubs. Kurieeto 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal should be moved to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion as that is the appropriate forum for discussing stub categories. I will move it across in the morning (about 06:00 UTC), unless someone beats me to it. Road Wizard 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now moved this across to SfD. Please discuss this proposal there. Thanks. Road Wizard 06:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Modern victims of Islamic decapitation edit

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Decapitated terrorist victims. While only a few people supported this new name, there is a wide support for not keeping the category under its current name. In addition, there's no consensus to delete. Conscious 07:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-islamic title, delete or choose another name. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename. Islam didn't kill these people; people did. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't think of a way to rename this to conform to NPOV. BoojiBoy 17:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- most of the folks in this category are not notable persons, and those articles are likely to be deleted. We don't have articles for every Iraqi decapitated or otherwise, and there's no reason to have a category for folks that happen to be Americans. --William Allen Simpson 17:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. History books will no doubt mention persons such as Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg on the same page, because this is a valid category. It is an unpleasant fact that certain persons objectively fit into this category; thus, it does conform to NPOV. I would also support the existence of categories such as "Modern victims of Christian decapitation" and "Modern victims of Buddhist decapitation," if there were any persons who could be placed in those categories. This is not, implicitly or explicitly, a category for Americans. Witness Kenneth Bigley, a Briton. Although there may not at present be any articles for Iraqi victims, anyone is free to create such articles and add them to this category. Novel compound 07:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful category. Rename to a more NPOV name if one is proposed. --Musicpvm 02:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename per David Kernow's suggestion below. --Musicpvm 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Decapitated terrorist victims. -- ProveIt (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:People decapitated by Islamic fundamentalists...?  David Kernow 11:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per ProveIt's sensible suggestion. --Dweller 11:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to less sweeping generalism. However, Fundamentalist islamic terrorists are the common thread here and sidestepping it completely with Category:Decapitated terrorist victims is willful ignorance. --Mmx1 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Frankly I am really surprised that this category has been proposed for deletion. WP:AGF presumes that each editor will actually discuss issues before taking drastic action. Why has there been no discussion about this issue on the category talk page? This category was made by me because a) it's accurate, b) it's NPOV and c) it's informative. The simple fact is that there are indeed a number of modern Islamic decapitations taking place. To deny this is foolish. Also, I have been careful to phrase the title of the category as accurately and neutrally as possible. Now, I am open to renamimg the category if possible so as to have consensus, but consensus is not achieved by threats of deletion. This CfD must be cancelled and the discussion moved to Category Talk:Modern victims of Islamic decapitation or this vote is bad faith. Scented Guano 06:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a useful cat, also I think some of these articles need to be merged... KWH 12:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current category name misleadingly suggests judicial executions under Shari'ah, rather than terrorist beheadings. Rename to Category:Victims of terrorist beheadings. --GCarty 07:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculously delete/rename, what is "islamic decapitation"? This category's name is so far from neutral point of view it is not even funny. Can we say prejudice? This category is not encyclopedic. A big problem with categories like this one is that they introduce sweeping generalizations that in particular allow for editors to utilize them based solely upon original research reasoning. Individuals like Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl have been executed/murdered in such a manor supposedly in the name of Allah but while such is said there also exists a significant body of points of view that says that those performing such beheadings are bastardizing Islam and merely using it as a tool to further their own socio-political ends. This category could possibly be understandable if we're talking solely about those who've been beheaded as a result of a conviction in a Sharia court... at least there'd be some verifiable foundation for the inclusion of an individual in this category... but really is such a category even needed? Netscott 12:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Anti-Islamic title" is a risible argument. The category is entirely factual, and there are no good reasons to delete it. I may support a reasonable renaming suggestion if one appears, but none has been made so far. Pecher Talk 12:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename to Category:People murdered by decapitation. So far as I'm aware, there's no method of decapitation described as "Islamic"; and, again so far as I'm aware, no sanction to "kill" or "execute" these people was given by any generally-recognised authority. David Kernow 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, this category appears to be about people killed, by decapitation, by militants, beheadings can also be carried out under the law (e.g. in Saudi), so the title is both misleading, and crap. I'm also not convinced we need a category for people specifically beheaded rather than killed by other means --Coroebus 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Word "Islamic" in the Category name is Anti-Islam. Are you saying that there decapitation was according to offical policy of Islam? (If so then I would like to decapitation you because I am Muslim :) ). Secondly, why to make a new cateogry and not a new list or article? I do not think this category (even with renaming) could be justified. Hence Delete it. --- Faisal 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those expressing shock at the name of this category, I urge you to look into the matter more closely. The Quran clearly has provisions in it for "striking the neck" (decapitating) adversaries. Still, it is true that this is controversial and we must avoid the appearance of bias. To that end, I would suggest that we rename to Modern victims of Islamic Terrorist decapitation. We must include "Islamic" because all of the killings were committed by Islamic zealots. If we leave that out, we are sugar coating this. However, we must not condem all of Islam for these killings, therefore adding the clarifying text of "Terrorist" is correct. As for "modern" and "decapitation" those words speak for themselves and do not need clarification. Scented Guano 16:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Decapitated terrorist victims as per ProveIt's suggestion. None of those decapitations has been approved by any Muslim cleric. Raphael1 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename, either per Raphael1, or at least to s/Islamic/Islamist/. dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Inflammatory, POV-biased. Part of the general theme of certain individuals turning Wikipedia as a reservoir of indictments against Islam. His Excellency... 17:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Terrorism victims. - Merzbow 17:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest this nom is relisted to find which of the alternatives suggested thus far has greatest support:
  1. Keep without change to name
  2. Delete entirely
  3. Merge into Category:Terrorism victims
  4. Rename to / create:
    1. Decapitated terrorist victims
    2. People decapitated by Islamic fundamentalists
    3. Victims of terrorist beheadings
    4. People murdered by decapitation
    5. Modern victims of Islamic terrorist decapitation
Regards, David Kernow 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Anthropological categories of people to Category:Anthropological categories of peoples 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. the wub "?!" 07:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category contains sub-cats like Category:Ethnic groups, Category:Race, and Category:Religious groups. Its scope is for people in the plural sense as groups, or "peoples". This is distinct from the singular "people", as used for Category:People for the collection of individuals. Proposal is to change "people" to "peoples" in the title of this category, given the category's scope. Kurieeto 13:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Sindh and Category:People of Sindh, Pakistan 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 to Category:People from Sindh. the wub "?!" 07:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ought to be merged, no preference as to direction. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:People from Sindh, which is consistent with the other local Pakistani categories. There are two Punjabs, but there is only one Sindh I believe. Athenaeum 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Environmentalist groups in the United States edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 08:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category was created on March 29, 2006. It is currently empty. It appears to have a very similar scope to Category:American environmental organizations. Given that it has no contents, I'm proposing it for deletion as unwarranted categorization at this time. Kurieeto 12:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If populated merge to whatever the U.S. categories is called after the end of the next debate down. ReeseM 03:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and it is bad grammer. Environmentalists are people and they are not the subject of the category. The editor who created the category probably wanted to categorise environmental groups not the people. Alan Liefting 10:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Environmental organizations by country edit

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

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to apply the "based in" naming convention of Category:Organizations by country to the sub-cats of Category:Environmental organizations by country. Reasons in favour include consistency, and that switching to a by country naming convention avoids the problems that frequently follow by nationality names for entities that are not the direct cultural products of people.

--Kurieeto 12:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:ASME Presidents to Category:American Society of Mechanical Engineers presidents edit

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Presidents of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand acro to match article about group. Also cap fix. Vegaswikian 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relisted from June 6 for more opinions Tim! 11:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:German International players to Category:German international footballers and Category:French International players to Category:French international footballers 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 no consensus Tim! 17:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both as the page list footballers to have played internationals for their national football team and as this how other like cat pages have been named Mayumashu 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relisted from June 6 for more opinions Tim! 11:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:American Catholic theologians to Category:American Roman Catholic theologians 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. the wub "?!" 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category should specify that this relates to Roman Catholics, in line with similar categories. Chicheley 11:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roman Catholics by nationality edit

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

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the subcategories don't use the same form as the others, and one of those three is ungrammatical.

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:Fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing games 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 Moved contents into two categories as explained below. Vegaswikian 06:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split: Another hybrid CVG category. Split per the reasons I gave in this CfD. Please split into Category:Fantasy computer and video games and Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why not just put them into the more specific categories? Unless there is a reason someone might object, there is no reason to bring it here for a discussion. Vegaswikian 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am asking for the items to be moved to the new categories and this one to be deleted. That is the purpose of CfD. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone needs to move them. I can't close since I don't know where they need to go. Vegaswikian 23:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Split - No need for further categorisation of the MMORPG cat into genres -- CHANLORD [T]/[C]   04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
relisted from June 4 for further opinions I assume what the intention of this nomination is: delete the proposed category and move each of its members to the categories' parent categories? Tim! 10:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As in the previous nomination, the nominator suggests that all members of this category go into both Category:Fantasy computer and video games and Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games, and this category be deleted. I support that.--Mike Selinker 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:St. Louis Blues (NHL) 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 merge to Category:St. Louis Blues players. the wub "?!" 22:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:St. Louis Blues players -- ProveIt (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge in this case (NHL) is better. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:St. Louis Blues players. The hockey team is only team of that name that has a Wikipedia article, according to the disambiguation page. - EurekaLott 19:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per EurekaLott. No need to DAB. BoojiBoy 22:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge. I completely and wholeheartedly agree with the nomination, but to avoid ambiguity with the music and what-not, a reverse merge would be better. We do NOT need both categories. However, we have so much more cleanup elsewhere to do. This isn't a high-priority. But I agree that the St. Louis Blues only exist as an NHL team, so no need to narrow it further. But as it is it isn't a huge misstep for Wikipedia. Antares33712 14:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
relisted from June 4 for more opinions Tim! 10:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Crimean people 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 No consensus and already relisted, but somebody emptied it in the meantime. --William Allen Simpson 07:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs deletion, or renaming (to what?) for following reasons:

  • the "...people" categories are for the people of the given nationalities. But Crimea is a multi-ethnic historical region and autonomy with a complicated history. That's why the category should be renamed if the community designates it for the bio articles related to Crimean peninsula (which I object)
  • previously the category has been confusingly mixing bio articles with articles on ethnic groups, like Krymchaks. However, not all ethnicities present on peninsula were listed. But defining which groups are true Crimean people, and which aren't, would be a conflict issue inadmissable for WP. That's why I emptied the cat., and strongly object its using for categorizing "peoples"/ethnic groups

Feel free to suggest new name considering all above-written. Ukrained 22:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm... "... people" are really about personalities, but not about ethnic groups. IMHO in that case we should create Category:Crimean society and replace "ethnic" articles there. Don Alessandro 10:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking of two instead: the bio cat., like Category:Famous people/natives of Crimea, but only if people insist. You see, we have at least four different cultural&historical "areas" of Crimea: UBK, Sevastopol and other Russian Navy settlements, Tatars and modern Steppen Crimea (largerly Ukrainian and industrialized). Do we need to group all those famous people in one cat. And, aiming to ethnicities classification, I suggest some category or List of ethnic groups residing in Crimea (where every each small group is presented).
  • But first, Don, do you support or oppose deletion of the existing category? Under procedure, you should vote in bold so we can decide either to rename one category, or to delete and recreate two (1+list) instead. And we need few other thoughts to decide the issue. Cheers, Ukrained 08:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I still oppose the Crimean people wording as pointing to some single nationality/statehood. What do you say about Category:People of Crimea? Crimean personalities is less admissable for me.
  • And, as you can see from above, I'm for two categories :), or even three like suggested in the end of your post. Ukrained 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let it be "People of Crimea". Don Alessandro 12:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from June 3 for more opinions Tim! 10:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Legend of Zelda 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 no consensus. Discussion continuing at User talk:Road Wizard/Legend of Zelda CfD discussion. the wub "?!" 08:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor appears to have created new categories for most - if not all - Legend of Zelda categories by including the word "The" at the start. As I can't find any reference to a previous discussion here, I assume these changes haven't been ratified at Cfd. Can editors please state whether they wish to Keep the new category names (including the word "The") or Revert to the old ones (without "The"). Thank you. Road Wizard 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some other sub-categories in Category:The Legend of Zelda games and Category:The Legend of Zelda media that do not appear to have equivalents without "The", but should probably be considered here as well. Road Wizard 10:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I made these and I wasn't exactly aware of this process. I rather wanted to get these corrected out... I saw a note regarding this naming issue on one of the talk pages for a 'Legend of Zelda' page, and that really got me started. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Also, in line with what User:Voretus has said below, the titles should all follow the same conventions, including the main page of (The) Legend of Zelda. So really, every category should have 'The Legend of Zelda', as opposed to all with 'Legend of Zelda' or a mixed usage. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC) There is also one more thing - I realized there could be over lap between tLoZ the game and tLoZ the series... now I think we should make them all have series in the title. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. A paper enc. wouldn't cover most video games. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from June 3 as no consensus Tim! 09:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert --William Allen Simpson 06:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On June 16, I proposed merges/deletions for several "The Legend of Zelda" categories here. If the conclusion is to revert (reverse merge?) the categories above to "Legend of Zelda", then I will replace the categories in my proposal with the "Legend of Zelda" names. I'm still for the consolidation of these categories but don't want to interfere with this proposal which came first. --Vossanova o< 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why can't all this fluffly nonsense just go into the original category...? None of these other categories are necessary. -ZeroTalk 16:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps we should eliminate the sub-cats for games, like the cat for tLoZ Nintendo 64 games. Scepia 19:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We don't appear to be closer to a consensus this time round, so I have taken the liberty of starting a new discussion outside of CfD. I will invite each of the people who have previously commented and voted above. Once we reach a consensus on any of the issues, we can return to CfD with a new proposal. Road Wizard 14:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Syncretic political movements 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. the wub "?!" 08:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ambiguous categorization. Intangible 03:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've had this on my watchlist for a while, wondering what would become of it. As the nominator points out, it doesn't have a clear criteria, and the groups have little in common that readers would seek to navigate to (the point of a category). This is the political equivalent of "Category: Eccentric people". -Will Beback 10:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom KleenupKrew 14:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. On a related note: what shall we do with the Syncretic politics (an unreferenced stub looking like patent non-sense)?. I'm no political science expert, but.... Ukrained 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Five seconds spent on Google would reveal the term syncretic politics has been used in both the Nation magazine and the Village Voice, in reference to Pim Fortuyn and Andrew Sullivan. You don't have to be a poli sci expert to do a web search, right? Mjk2357 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong keep. But include a simple definition. Otherwise, where are we going to put thing such as National-Bolshevism or National-Sindicalism? I certainly would not like them put on under extreme left and would not totally fit under fascism. In all cases, someone have to go through and remove POV additions such as People's Mujaheedeen of Iran and the like. And there is definitely such as a thing as syncretic politics. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 09:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is about the Category:Syncretic political movements, not the article (which does have problems). Intangible 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that. I am talking about the stub here. E Asterion u talking to me? 16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you can give me a definition of syncretism that would give a NPOV partitioning of political movements, that would be welcome. Although I think you will fail in this. Intangible 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, you know this would be very difficult, because the whole point is that these groups accept views of traditionally opposed ideologies, obviously within different degrees. On the other hand, I could say that in most ocassions they are far right movements with a touch of "class struggle". I think we should get some expert opinion before going ahead and delete this on our own. This is my only reason to disagree. E Asterion u talking to me? 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment How is adding People's Mujaheedeen of Iran POV? Unless you think Marxism and Islamism are similar ideologies, then the group is certainly syncretic. Mjk2357 11:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Deciding on our own which movements are syncretic is original research. We should rely as much as possible on outside sources and simply report that group X "has been called 'syncretic'". Though not necessarily pejorative, I doubt any significant group uses that label for itself. Separately, I've listed all of the category entries in the article itself to see what that looks like. I think that since it's a vaguely defined term we should not use it as a category, merely as a list. -Will Beback 23:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because the basis for inclusion is not B&W is not in itself a reason to delete a category that is neither eminently "loaded" in meaning, nor original research. Don't we expect readers to be able to realize that a category can be abstract, and therefore can have contested members - yet still be useful? Far from being unhelpful to users, this is the sort of emergent, interesting categorization that should be encouraged in a large web of information. Outriggr 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Categorization derives from ontology, the way of being of things. You cannot argue that those current entries should be listed in this category and other (political) movements not, thus categorization is impossible. Intangible 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, categories are binary - if what you are trying to classify is not inherently binary, and guidelines that will govern inclusion/exclusion can not be strictly formulated, then listify instead; there, it is possible to debate various views on the extent to which entries have been considered syncretic. Just because there are some clear-cut cases for inclusion doesn't mean the category is itself clear-cut enough. TheGrappler 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from 3 June 2006 due to lack of clear consensus Tim! 08:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it make more sense to list a few notably syncretic movements at the main syncretic politics article, perhaps? Some movements have been syncretic, in history, and this would be worth noting, but as was pointed out, the category is a bit subjective. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but sometimes I like to say, if a categorization isn't inherently intuitive, it shouldn't be made. Luna Santin 10:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Skull Island species 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 no consensus. Conscious 07:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and attracts fancruft. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Currently empty, and honestly, how many of those creatures are really so notable? An article discussing a few of the creatures, sure, I guess, but do we really need a whole category? Luna Santin 10:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a great category, and well organized.--Mike Selinker 14:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's empty; what articles do you want to include, real species or fictional ones? ×Meegs 23:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Skull Island is fictional, I'd imagine that it'd mostly be ficitonal. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at Skull_Island#Skull Island inhabitants, it appears that the only species that have articles are the real ones, and I really don't think those belong in a category like this (less we're prepared to have Stegosaurus included in dozens of categories for films and novels it has appeared in). ×Meegs 10:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now see why I sound like I'm endorsing an empty category: On Friday, User:Apostrophe deleted all of its contents, turning articles like Vastatosaurus rex and Venatosaurus saevidicus into redirects, before proposing the deletion of the category on Saturday. I can't find any AfDs on these. Apostrophe, was there consensus to do this, and if so, where? (To Meegs's point, I think this category should only have articles about fictional species, not stegosaurs.)--Mike Selinker 14:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Turning into redirects" is not deletion, nor is it something that needs consensus. You are free to revert my changes. Of course, I'd expect an AfD for all of them if you do so. (50 or so articles on fictional animals only described in a fictional encyclopedia? C'mon, and that doesn't even touch on the clear copyright issues.) ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 03:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I do believe that blanking the contents on 50 articles would need consensus. Well, when I read the articles, I found them interesting and insightful, and I didn't even see the movie. So I'd vote for putting them back in this category, seeing which ones get deleted, and then reevaluating this category. Seem okay to everyone?--Mike Selinker 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, you certainly should restore the articles if you believe they are valuable. It does appear that a number of editors have worked on them.
Apostrophe, it would have been nice if you had shared the information that you emptied the category, especially since it was your lead argument for deletion. If the redirection is challenged, though, you should be the one to bring the articles to AfD if you want to pursue their deletion (after all, you don't want a proponent of the articles writing their nomination). I have no real opinion on their subject, but 50 articles based on The World of Kong does seem excessive, and I'd expect there would be a consensus to merge (and condense) them to a single article. If Mike or anyone does restore any of the articles, we should keep the category while the articles' fate is decided. ×Meegs 13:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I restored the text for 11 articles in the category. I couldn't find any more, and I figured if they required that much searching, they probably weren't worth keeping. But I'd certainly support most or all of these on AfD if they come up.--Mike Selinker 19:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

models, phase II 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 Withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 08:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Well, apparently we're not going to wait. OK, withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per this approved deletion, the rest of the category's pertinent contents are being relisted here for another week.

removed category names

Any objections to these going the way of their sistren?--Mike Selinker 05:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baleet. Looked it over, considered a few (Vogue and Coca-Cola, at first), but nothing struck me in particular. Luna Santin 06:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Chicheley 11:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. BoojiBoy 12:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete allper nom. Doc 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canadian social justice activists to Category:Canadian activists 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 to Category:Canadian activists. the wub "?!" 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge categories to remove any bias in distinguishing between the two. Deet 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Social justice is a slippery concept and many of the people on the list are activists for other causes as well (Maude Barlow and Naomi Klein being two obvious examples). BoojiBoy 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to point out, there's 24 articles in Category:Canadian activists and 83 in Category:Canadian social justice activists, which would put the total count up to 107 after merge. It may be desirable to subcategorize, but it may be preferable to do so with slightly less nebulous/POV criteria. For instance, minority rights advocates could be a subcategory, and I see Canadian feminists is already a subcategory. Luna Santin 06:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The category is bloated in part because of all the left-of-center politicians in it (e.g., Jack Layton). If we remove the positive "social justice" vibe some wikipedians might find less temptation to put their favourite politician into it. Deet 11:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Chicheley 11:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder if "Canadian activists" is too general a category to be of any use. "Social justice" usually refers to a left-of-centre ideology, in the modern usage of the term. CJCurrie 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is only used by people on the left, so it is POV. Sumahoy 01:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and find suitable subcats if necessary, like Canadian free speech activists, for example. Intangible 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Sumahoy 01:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Osomec 16:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:California Transit to Category:Mass transit in California 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 to Category:Mass transit in California. the wub "?!" 09:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories should be merged because Category:California Transit is misnamed and redundant. Mike Dillon 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sport in Persia 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/merge to Iranian categories. Conscious 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid this category is an anacronism. Please delete it and all its subcategories. I suppose that the corresponding articles must be related to Iran. Particularly funny sounds category:Persian bodybuilders. Mukadderat 00:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_17&oldid=1110510946"