Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 18

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< May 17 May 19 >

May 18 edit

Category:Canadian sports planes and Category:Canadian sports planes 1990-1999 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. Vegaswikian 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to delete Category:Canadian sports planes and its child Category:Canadian sports planes 1990-1999. They were both created in October of 2004. Category:Canadian sports planes contains a single child, Category:Canadian sports planes 1990-1999, and this child contains only one article. I believe this strongly demonstrates unnecessary overcategorization as these categories have existed for over a year and a half but contain a total of only one article. Proposal is to move that article, Aces High Cuby, up to Category:Canadian aircraft, and delete the two categories identified. Kurieeto 23:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose They also fit into other hierarchies. The system in use here is excellent and it should be left in a complete state. Bhoeble 13:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, but I will say that those pages have way too much setup templates for my taste. If you can't get to the articles by midway down the page, the page layout needs to be rethought. Just my opinion.--Mike Selinker 15:22, 19 May 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.

Landmarks by region 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. Vegaswikian 04:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal seeks to rename the following landmarks by region categories in line with the landmarks by country naming convention which was passed here on May 4. Reasons provided for the renamings are the same as those used in the by country cfru, as well as now reasons regarding consistency.

--Kurieeto 22:07, 18 May 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:Circuits in TOCA Race Driver 3 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. Vegaswikian 05:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This includes real circuits in a computer game. Such categories shouldn't exist, as Hockenheimring, for example, would be included in too many of them. Conscious 19:32, 18 May 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:Cities of predominantly Kurdish population 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. Vegaswikian 05:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete empty category. Sulfur 19:37, 20 May 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:Chicago Bands 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:Chicago musical groups Tim! 17:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Conscious 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps even Category:Music groups from Chicago to remove any traces of ambiguity as regards Musical... Instinctively, though, I'd say "bands" were kinds of "music groups" (whether rock bands, marching bands, etc; but not groups of handbell ringers or the like?) so perhaps have the former subsumed by the latter...?  Regards, David Kernow 18:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think there'd be a consensus to replace all such instances of "musical" with "music"?  Regards, David 23:38, 19 May 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:EastEnders Work in Progress 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. Vegaswikian 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Conscious 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:International Idiocy 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 speedied as recreated content. was deleted per cfd in march. Syrthiss 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains an article with the same name (at this article is on its way to deletion, btw). Conscious 15:56, 18 May 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:Little House 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. Vegaswikian 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's for articles, it duplicates Category:Little House on the Prairie. If it's for a wikiproject, it should be renamed accordingly. Conscious 15:50, 18 May 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 American intercontinental ballistic missiles 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. Vegaswikian 05:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat, delete?
Should be renamed to Category:Intercontinental ballistic missiles of the United States still in service or something along the line if kept.
  • America does not necesarily mean the United States (I know only US has such missles in the entier America continent)
  • What do we consider "modern"
--Cat out 15:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's say delete until/unless someone works out Cool Cat's queries...?  David Kernow 18:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entire missile structure needs pruning. We've got divisions by type and by era and by country, which leaves only like three in each cat. Night Gyr 09:59, 19 May 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:Wikipedia featured essays 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 already deleted. Conscious 17:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless bureaucracy, not to mention a rather inappropriate use of the word 'featured' (which has particularly specific connotations within the Wikipedia context). --Nick Boalch 15:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 22:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category and associated {{Featured essay}} template per nom. --Muchness 03:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How about renaming to popular essays if featured is reserved only for official processes? Kind of like an essay barnstar for essays that are frequently cited at discussions on Wikipedia and the mailing lists. I also do not see what is bureaucratic about it. Loom91 05:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, unilateral creation of something like this without peer review is not a good thing since the use of featured article stars and the word "featured" give the impression that this is something official when it isn't. Second, I oppose featuring essays anyway since it gives the appearance that some opinions are worth more than other opinions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other arguements, this is bad idea IMHO. Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 07:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per Loom91. "Featured" should be reserved for official. GizzaChat © 08:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Notice. I've renamed the template and the category to popular in order to avoid the connotations of officialness and peer review carried by the word featured. Moreover, the template and the category are explicitly meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. It does not say that a certain essay should be heeded or that it is a guideline (it is mentioned that the essay is NOT a guideline and is informal), only that it is popular and is often cited in discussions. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a way of pointing out some essays a Wikipedian should be familiar with, whether they agree with it or not simply because they are going to see a lot of it at discussions. I hope this is sufficient to resolve everyone's objections. Loom91 08:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction. I've renamed the template, but found that there was no move button for categories. I think the category should also be moved to Category:Wikipedia popular essays in accordance with the new name of the template. Loom91 09:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that the idea of having more popular essays easily identified is a good one, as it is difficult for new wikipedians to identify which essays reflect widespread opinion and which reflect a minority opinion. However, I think there should be a location (the category talk page seems like a good one) where one can propose additions and without objection add them, or with objection reach concensus on whether to add or not. I guess I am for keeping the template and category with a discussion of the proper name/process (popular is better than featured, but still not completely satisfying - though I can't think of a better name) Trödel 13:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing should be singled out without an official selection process and a good reason to have one. Bhoeble 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic, useless category. --Cyde↔Weys 16:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 08:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to Deleters. If there should be an approval process, then could you give me some time to devolop a light system to determine which essays can be called popualr? This would not be a process to determine which essays are good, but which essays are popular, as suggested by the new name of the template. This will prevent redundancy with th Guideline process and stop long debates about the subjective issue of whether an essay is beneficial. I'll need some time to this so if you agree with my suggestion then I request that you don't delete right away. Loom91 07:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - featured content represents the best of Wikipedia - that is, for presenting information as an encyclopedia. Featured content is encyclopedic content, regardless of whether it is an article, picture, list, or portal. They all serve to inform and benefit the readers. Essays, especially those dealing with policy and guidelines, do not do that. The idea that they can be tagged as "featured", quite frankly, is premature and ridiculous. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I wish people would at least try to look at the discussion before sticking on that delete. The featured part has been changed, the template is now popular, and this category should also be renamed to that after this CfD. Loom91 06:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read the discussion; see my comment at the TfD. Regardless of what it is named, the concept remains the same; simply replacing "featured" with "popular" doesn't change anything. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strange, seeing that your objection was based exclusively around the name featured and its connotations. Do you mean that you are voting delete for no reason at all? I also don't see what the template started out as has to do with the whole thing. Loom91 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My objection was (and is) to the entire concept that some essays are created more equal than others, and the fact that these essays are not part of the encyclopedia. Changing the name from "featured" to "popular" does not change anything. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why do you insist on imposing fictional concepts on the template? The template does not claim some essays to be better than others and it won't claim so no matter how many times you repeat your objections. The template simply does not make that claim. Loom91 07:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • So why does it say, "[this is one of a few essays that are] popular within the community and [are] frequently cited at discussions"? I stand by my objections. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Because that's what they are, popular essays that are cited frequently at discussions. This is not something subjective, just take a look at What Links Here. We are not saying this essay reflects principles of wikipedia that you should heed, it only says many editors find reason to link to this essay when discussing with other editors. This is not a subjective judgment call but a statement of objective fact. This does not mean that the essay is better, only that more editors cite it. What's objectionable about that? Loom91 07:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • shift left...
  • ...shifted left: How about "project pages with more than TBD backlinks which are neither policy nor guideline"? You'd get rejected crap like WP:AUM or WP:HIDE this way, but it's strictly NPOV. Add a "what links here" to the template if you like this idea. -- Omniplex 22:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do I add such a link? Would you mind doing it? And WP:HIDE is not an essay. Loom91 06:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - good idea, I was rather annoyed that there's no way to highlight excellent "meta" pages (excl. talk / user / main / portal pages). There are excellent pages in the help + project + template namespaces. Irrelevant for readers of the encyclopedia, but very important for many editors. Limiting this to essays is IMO too restricted.
    BTW, a CFD for a category populated by a tempate is a clear speedy keep per WP:CDP, in other words it violates policy. -- Omniplex 20:43, 24 May 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:Catholic Eucharistic Theology to Category:Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology 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. Vegaswikian 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with both the new name of the main article on sacraments, and in order to eliminate the ambiguity of the term "Catholic." Fishhead64 15:17, 18 May 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:Olympic golf tournaments 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. Vegaswikian 05:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. See category:Golf at the Olympics. Osomec 15:09, 18 May 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:Buildings and structures in Georgia to Category:Buildings and structures in Georgia (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 Merge. Vegaswikian 05:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

consistency with other Georgia categories. LeRoi 15:05, 18 May 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:Nazi Germany officials to Category:Officials of Nazi Germany 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. Vegaswikian 04:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nazi Germany" mistaken for an adjective. David Kernow 13:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Choalbaton 08:12, 21 May 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:Personnel of Nazi concentration camps to Category:Nazi concentration camp personnel edit

Category:Executed personnel of Nazi concentration camps to Category:Executed Nazi concentration camp personnel 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. Vegaswikian 04:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neater. David Kernow 12:52, 18 May 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:Bands with an umlaut 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 (all groups already mentioned in the article). Conscious 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWO Reasons: 1/ The much detail; this is about the word, not the band. What's next ? Bands who's name start with a Q ? Bands with Caps in their name ? Bands with symbols in their name ? 2/ The category talks about heavy metal bands (in its description and its parent category). Its name doesn't mention this. Bands like Amon Düül that are included aren't heavy metal at all : this category leads to confusion --LimoWreck 13:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could the nominator please sign the above, otherwise it may not be taken as a serious nomination. Regardless, I'm still voting delete because this one's just silly. 23skidoo 11:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • sorry, I forgot. Added sign (timestamp is a bit too late, but so be it) --LimoWreck 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if kept, 'twould need renaming to "Bands whose names feature umlauts" or the like. David Kernow 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • actually, It would be "Heavy metal bands whose name features umlauts" or something like that... irrelevant to put in a seperate category it seems. Just integrating it in a list in the article about the heavy metal umlaut should be enough --LimoWreck 13:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If deleted, please merge all the names into heavy metal umlaut -- ProveIt (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic. Osomec 15:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete we sort bands by type of music, country etc... This seems excessive to me. --Cat out 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ströng keep Obviously none of you are fans of 1980s metal or Spinal Tap. A list in the heavy metal umlaut page or a see also from each band's page could provide access to this valuable lore, but a category would turn it up to 11.
    • No, a category for this makes is an example of tooo much categorisation. Already seen the cats under Albert Einstein ? Also: the title says bands with an umlaut, yet it's under heayv metal ? e.g. Amon Düül isn't heavy metal at all. Sloppy categorisation, and a list in the article is the ideal place --LimoWreck 08:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, how would a reader of one of the band articles know about the umlaut article, other than a "see also" link? Isn't a category a cleaner method? Ghosts&empties 14:36, 19 May 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:Land mobile aircraft carriers 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. Vegaswikian 05:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category with one article that cites only two fictional examples, neither of which has its own article or seems likely to have enough information to be worth it. Night Gyr 09:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Err... cartrgory that has only one article that has no way of growing is excessive... --Cat out 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Jewish-British people to Category:British Jews edit

Category:Jewish-English people to Category:English Jews 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/delete (empty). Conscious 19:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication. Merge [both] to better-style title.--Smerus 07:24, 18 May 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 Allegedly in the Closet 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. Vegaswikian 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, original research. Conscious 06:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete. Alleged by whom? Valiantis 13:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic (and featuring faulty capitalization). David Kernow 13:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Osomec 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete O_o --Cat out 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trouble waiting to happen. 23skidoo 20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per above comments. Alan Liefting 22:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lady Aleena 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 08:13, 21 May 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 Wollongong 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. Vegaswikian 05:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 06:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Weak keep; I was thinking about nominating this one yesterday ... however, it's a city of nearly two million people, and the category is only a few days old. If it's still empty after a week or two, it should definately go. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article says it has a metro population of 274,072. Osomec 15:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misread the census... -- ProveIt (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm for keeping it if there's something to put in it. Conscious 15:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being from a place should not be a categorisation criteria. If they are from Wollongong it can be mentioned in the article or in a list. A machine categorisation seems excessive to me. --Cat out 15:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just put 16 articles in it. It's certainly big enough to deserve its own category.--Mike Selinker 00:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now it is being used and would faction as any other People by city article. User:Dimadick
  • Rename to Category:People of Wollongong to match other members of Category:Australian people by city -- ProveIt (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on most of the other subcategories of Category:People by city, it's the rest of the Australian articles that should change to "People from X". This is a subject area where a large amount of standardization should take place.--Mike Selinker 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would prefer the People of form, since you can be of a city without being from it. Also, to me, from seems to imply that you used to live there, and then moved somewhere else. But I could live with it either way. -- ProveIt (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another example, Arnold Schwarzenegger is certainly of California, but certainly not from California. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've removed my previous "delete" comment (it can be found as a remark in the code of this section) and moved everyone in Category:People from the Illawarra who are from Wollongong into this category. There have been plenty more people since added to this category so I don't see why it shouldn't stay. Thanks to everyone who helped do that, by the way. Greg the White Falcon 02:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rename Category:People of Wollongong per Provelt -- based on later (May 23) discussion, we're standardizing on "from" --William Allen Simpson 09:16, 25 May 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:Pokémon Fan Wikipedians/Userboxes 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. Vegaswikian 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 06:18, 18 May 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:Philosophical wikipedist to Category:Wikipedians interested in philosophy 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. Vegaswikian 04:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories. - EurekaLott 04:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Horror/comedy films to Category:Comedy horror films 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 renamed. Conscious 05:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to coordinate with Category:Comedy science fiction films. Her Pegship 03:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename per nom. (Incidentally, I believe "Comedy science fiction films" would be rendered "Comedy science-fiction films"; the noun "science fiction" becomes the adjective "science-fiction".)  Regards, David Kernow 13:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Lady Aleena 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename And, it gets rid of the slash. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. (Ibaranoff24 01:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 08:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator did NOT request the category's deletion. He requested that the category be renamed. (Ibaranoff24 11:33, 23 May 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:Portmanteau films to Category:Anthology films 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. Vegaswikian 04:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthology films appears to be a much more common name for this type of film. See Talk:Anthology film; I already moved the article Portmanteau film to Anthology film. Шизомби 02:13, 18 May 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:Eccentrics 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. Vegaswikian 05:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the category does list criteria for inclusion, I still think this crosses the POV/Speculation line. I've already removed Angelina Jolie from this on the grounds that just because she acts contrary to accepted norms, that does not make her an established eccentric. That drew my attention to this category, and assuming very few people will read the criteria on the page, I just think it's impossible to maintain NPOV and avoid original research with this one. 23skidoo 00:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomPalendrom 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This one was already considered recently under another name; the result was keep and rename. (I nominated it the first time.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *yawn* keep --Francis Schonken 06:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not necessary. Michael David 12:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly an extremely subjective judgement. Valiantis 13:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete back to wiki-hell. "Accepted norms" are very diferent in saudi arabia and United states... --Cat out 16:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This a way to make wikipedia more entertaining without making diluting making it less factual. (Sorry if I've offended you or if I'm unclear on the principles.) The disclaimers do a good job at explaining the category and the fact that in many cases the categorization will be subjective or mildly offensive.
  • Delete - Inherently subjective and prone to abuse. --dm (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion --those that are proffered are not a meaningful categorization. Carlossuarez46 17:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too subjective to use in a NPOV fashion. -Sean Curtin 00:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is used to push a POV about people. Example is inclusion of Timothy Treadwell. No objective criteria. Get rid of it. Kasreyn 16:05, 28 May 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:Customary categories of 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 Up merge. Vegaswikian 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a reader looking at Category:People, I really have no idea what classifications are "customary" or what to expect to be filed there. This seems to be a catchall category; it would be better if it were merged with Category:People and then things refiled under actual topic subcategories if necessary. -- Beland 02:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Unclear. Osomec 05:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per above. Ill-defined, probably unmanageable. David Kernow 13:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we can 'customise' people. Ill-defined and we do not categorise categories... --Cat out 16:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge I could never figure out what was meant by this category either. --JeffW 18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Bhoeble 13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lady Aleena 20:37, 19 May 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:Dracula actors edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've parked this at Category:Actors for the moment. Do we want to classify actors by character? If yes, we should create Category:Actors by character and put it there, otherwise we should just delete it. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -perhaps a list on the main Dracula article? Palendrom 02:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; this way lies madness. Her Pegship 03:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There might be a value to identifying notable actors who've portrayed Dracula, though I'm not sure a category is the best way. The name "Dracula actors" is awkward and appears to have created some confusion with some of the people in the category being actors who appeared in the film Dracula without playing Dracula. Шизомби 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 05:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not necessary Michael David 12:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excessive, list on the Dracula if you have to. --Cat out 16:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There are a few characters played by multiple actors that are notable, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, and Dracula among them and I'm not sure it would cause too much category clutter if it were kept to just a few. However, a list would probably be better. --JeffW 18:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, of course, Doctor Who ... ProveIt (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete only because the criteria is awkward. I would support a Category: Actors who have portrayed Dracula. 23skidoo 20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I only know of 4 or 5 characters that could get categories such as this, so rename it to Category:Actors who have portrayed Dracula. The others have been mentioned by JeffW and ProveIt, though they forgot Frankenstein and his monster. The category could be broadened however to Category:Actors who have portrayed vampires. Lady Aleena 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/rename per Lady Aleena or create list per JeffW. Clearly the information is useful, in one form or the other. -- DS1953 talk 00:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete While Lady Aleena says that she knows only 4 or 5 characters that *could* get categories such as this, what I think she is saying is that she knows only 4 or 5 who *deserve* such categories. Unfortunately, there's no way to draw the line. Dracula, Frankenstein, his monster, The Mummy, Superman, James Bond, Hercule Poirot, Hercules, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, John F. Kennedy, Jesus, Pilate, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Richard Nixon, Stalin, (just a free association from my demented mind) etc. etc. etc. Many more than 4 or 5 characters have appeared in several movies played by different actors, its an endless useless categorization. Let's nip it in the bud. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 22 May 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:London Films to Category:London Films films 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:Films by London Films. Vegaswikian 05:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The studio is actually named London Films -- ProveIt (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an awkward name; I'm just trying to match the other members of Category:Films by studio -- ProveIt (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:London Films productions, Category:London Films movies or something along the line. there must be an alternative word to replace the second film... --Cat out 16:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of any agreed answer to Cool Cat's plea, I'd say go with Category:Films by London Films as "the exception that proves the rule" – a "rationale" that could be placed at the top of the category page...?  Alternatively, comandeer a bot to change all the other subcategory names to the "Films by X" format... Regards, David Kernow 18:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Films by London Films" for reasons stated above. 23skidoo 20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Lady Aleena 20:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add Strong to my above opinion. The Film project has rejected the word movie, and most of the other categories that share the same category with this one list the company name first and then the word films. Lady Aleena 18:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe consider changing those categories to "Films by..." ...?  Regards, David Kernow 08:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per David Kernow and 23skidoo. At some point practicality has to win out over arbitraty rules. --JeffW 18:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Films by London Films" Bhoeble 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to match the established "Films by X" naming format. -Sean Curtin 00:17, 24 May 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_May_18&oldid=1136104304"