Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< May 22 May 24 >

May 23

edit

Category:Poezja śpiewana to Category:Sung poetry

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:Sung poetry of Poland. Conscious 06:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are good reasons to use non-English language names in various articles. This isn't one of them: a name of a Polish genre of music which is not used in any English sources according to my Google test should be translated if possible, and this nicely translates into 'sung poetry'. I have already moved the article, and there is consensus (well, me and another user interested in this topic...) for the move. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Caveat lector 19:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sung poetry of Poland or the like, as, per nom, this seems a Polish category. (So fas I know, "Sung poetry" is not used as a name for a music/poetry genre in the English-speaking world.)  Regards, David Kernow 07:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something not using the word Sung. Selected Poets from Sung Dynasty: Wang An-shih (A.D. 1021 - 1086); Su Shih (A.D. 1036 - 1101); Lu Yu (A.D. 1125 - 1210). Currently Chinese poetry classification in the Wikipedia is not well developed, but traditionally classical Chinese literature is broken up by dynasty rather than century or period as in the West. Think of something else, please. Bejnar 18:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If, as it appears, a uniquely Polish genre of music has no accepted English translation we should use the Polish name. My Google test suggests people only write "sung poetry" in quote marks to give a literal gloss when they also supply the Polish name (i.e. they don't write "Polish sung poetry" alone and expect people to know what it means). We're not in the business of coining new translations. —Blotwell 19:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose upon reflection, I like Poezja śpiewana. 70.57.246.220 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Sung Poetry of Poland. I don't see anything wrong with providing an English title that is descriptive of the contents of a category. This is supposed to be the English Wikipedia. --JeffW 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest further input re possible translations from other Polish Wikipedians...?  David Kernow 00:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Besides, while the genre is particularly popular in Poland, it is by no means unrelated to other similar genres in the world, even though at times these are not classified as such. French chanson, the works of Karel Kryl, and so on... //Halibutt 03:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, not as in the nom, but to Category:Sung poetry of Poland. "Sung poetry" alone makes me think of poetry from the Song dynasty, often written as Sung dynasty. Kusma (討論) 18:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sung poetry of Poland per Kusma Calsicol 11:46, 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.
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 00:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ought to be straightforward: this is a meta-category, indeed is a subcategory of "Wikipedia featured content" and "Wikipedia images by type", so probably should begin with the "Wikipedia" name. TheGrappler 21:54, 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:Weblogs search engines to Category:Blog search engines

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 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog — or variants thereof — appears to be the preferred naming convention for articles and categories (see Category:Blogs). Also, blog should be singular, not plural. jareha (comments) 21:47, 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.

Natives to 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 keep. Conscious 06:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Category:Greek people by periphery
I completely agree, and have already stated a preference. However, I could live with any of the above as a standard. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "from" is better than "of" because it is relative immutable. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it is these people are categorized by their place of birth with no statement of ethnicity. "People of" is ambiguous enough to have people who settled at these territorries at any point in their lifes lumbed together. (By the way William Allen Simpson, you misunderstood a comment by another user. They were not excluded by the above categories. They were excluded by Category:Greek Macedonians and article Greek Macedonians because their last name indicates them being Pontic Greeks. Personally I doubt there are many people in modern Greece who do not have ancestors in Anatolia. The 1923 Exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey transferred 1,500,000 Anatolian Greeks across the Aegean Sea.) User:Dimadick
    By your own admission, there is no misunderstanding. People who settled somewhere at any time in their lives are "from" the area ("lumbed together"[sic]). For example, the Athenian that became a deputy in Thessalonika is "from" both places. People whose grandparents were Pontic Greeks that now live in Greek Macedonia are "from" Greek Macedonia, and are not excluded by the form of their names. Likewise, people from other areas of the Balkans that settle in Greek Macedonia are "from" Greek Macedonia, and are not excluded by ancestry. We don't do ethnic cleansing on Wikipedia. --William Allen Simpson 07:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about Ethnic Cleansing. Categories "Natives of" categorise people born in a city or territorry regardless of ethnicity. Category Greek Macedonians was not created to house everyone born or living in Greek Macedonia but the Greeks who self-identify as Macedonians. User:Dimadick
      • Since i am the user to whom the whole issue in Greek Macedonians refer to, i found it right to post a comment here. User Dimadick really understoond exactly what i meant. but user William Allen Simpson sees no point in that and keeps talking about 'ethnic cleansing'... Noone ever spoke 'bout ethnic cleansing and none edit of mine had such motivations! all i said (and allow me to see it as the most accurate definition) is that people who belong to the Pontian Greeks cannot be listed in Greek Macedonians. The specific article is not about people in Greek Macedonia, but about Greek Macedonians. I do not find it hard for anyone to understand the difference... Furthermore, Pontian Greeks, e.g., do not self identify as Greek Macedonians... William Allen Simpson's idea that People who settled somewhere at any time in their lives are "from" the area, is just his POV... There are sub-groups within the Greek ethnic group, don't pretent not to understand it. Lastly, to Dimadick, according to some estimations in Greece, 40% of the population has at least some ancestry from the refugees of 1923. Cause of mixed (cretan-cypriot-greek macedonian-thessalian-pontian...) marriages, some people can be listed in 2 categories like Greek Macedonians. As far as the categories here are concerned, they shouldn't be deleted or renamed, cause one thing is self identification (e.g. Greek Macedonians or Pontian Greeks) and another thing nativity (e.g. Natives of Attica or Thessaly). In addition i also think that the word 'from' (i.e. in the concept discussed here 'Category:People from Central Greece' is very ambiguous and confusing, not to mention that it can make the reader believe false things...-do compare Category:Baltic Germans and Category:Natives of Bonn, please (i have many more examples if someone wishes...). My vote will go to the bottom of this section. --Hectorian 01:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per ProveIt. "from" also has the simplicity of being immutable. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From" might have connotations of "no longer there", but if so, I don't know if that causes any problems. Regards, David Kernow 07:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment This seems to come from a misunderstanding between North American and European Wikipedians. I think I should explain that I created some of these categories and had others renamed to begin with "Natives of ..." There was no nationalistic or ethnic reasoning behind the use of "Natives of ...". On the contrary. I'm Irish but live in Greece and originally got involved with the renaming of these categories after I saw that there was a Category:Makedones or something like that. In addition, before I began to standardise the entries on Category:Greek people by periphery, many of the pages contained the exclusionary line: "This page is only for Greeks from XXX". I took the "Natives of ..." perfix from the pattern set at Category:Irish people by county, Category:English people by county, Category:French people by place, Category:German_people_by_state, Category:Swiss_people_by_canton, and Category:Italian people by region - all of which use the pattern Natives of .... I intended the categories to be as inclusive as possible. Thus, famous Turkish people born in places like Crete, Prevesa but expelled from Greece in the 1920s Exchange of Populations could be categorised accordingly. There seems to be some confusion over the term "Native". Ataturk is undeniably a native of Salonica no matter what way you look at it. It was that understanding of the word "Native" that guided my naming policy and renaming requests. There was absolutely no intention at doing "ethnic cleansing on Wikipedia" and I feel that William Allen Simpson could have checked with me before rushing to such conclusions. If this renaming succeeds, I expect the proposer will take the trouble to have every instance of "Native of" removed from similar categories for a number of European countries.--Damac 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps its a local thing, but when people ask me Where are you from?, what they really mean is one of two things. The first is Where did you live before you moved here? in which case the answer is quite a long list. However, sometimes what they are really asking is Where where you born?. In either case, where I live now is not expected to be part of the answer. I think that is is a reasonable thing to classify people by location, but there are lots of different ways of doing that, and we don't really have a standard. One can use place of birth, citizenship, place of residency, or even ethnic heritige. I would recommend using either the People of Foo or Fooian people notation, and just saying that these people are associated with Foo for some reason. If someone cares about details such as citizenship, place of birth etc, ethnicity, etc, do it in a subcat... -- ProveIt (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS:I also do not believe that such Category:People from Thessaloniki are needed since they would fall under Category:Natives of Central Macedonia. As stated above Category:Greek people by periphery says it clearly, people from the Category:Peripheries of Greece, not cities and towns. ~Mallaccaos, 25 May 2006
Just to clear up one thing, Mallacaos: i did not remove pontian greeks from e.g. Category:Natives of Central Macedonia, but from Greek Macedonians. i guess that u can see the difference. --Hectorian 01:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would disagree with the previous contributor. The category is not just for Greeks and not for the modern Greek state. Who decided that? .--Damac 10:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the category Category:Greek people by periphery that's what it was suppose to be which is why the tag line {{Fooian people}}
is in place. The caterogries were originally called Category:Greek People by Greek peripheries, with the sub-categories of each being as such: Category:Epirotes[1], Category:Makedones[2] and Category:Kritiki [3]. People renamed them without saying anything later on. ~Mallaccaos, 26 ay 2006
As with similar categorisations across Wikipedia, the geographical classification is based on present-day borders and classifies people according to where they were born. Of course, the the Greek peripheries did not always exist but they are the present administrative boundaries which are usful for categorising poeple. There would be chaos on Wikipedia if people were to be classified as natives of whatever historical political entity was born into. If we accept his viewpoint that the category is for the "Modern Greek state ONLY", then anyone born in any part of Greece before 1832, the Ionian Islands before the 1860s, Thessaly before 1881, in Crete before 1908, most of Macedonia and Thrace before 1913, and the Dodecanese before 1947 cannot be designated as being a native of Greece, but of the Ottoman Empire or Italy. Is that what Mallaccaos proposes? .--Damac 10:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Greek state means the history which shaped the Modern State of Greece, which included the dates you covered above. See:History of modern Greece. The way it is being proposed to be catergorized by some, then basically any person from any time period who lived/setteled in that periphery can be caterogrized as such. In that case you might as well categorize Ancient Greeks, Byzantine and people within the Ottoman Empires as such. These other subjects have their own specific categories for those time periods. This category was named as such because it pertains to the Greek modern state and its people who helped shape it. Your not going to tell me that John Capodistria did not identify himself as Greek even though he was born during a time period when between French, Russian and British rule the Ionian Islands. ~Mallaccaos, 26May 2006
It is always useful to look around at other countries to see how they dealt with the matter (this helps avoid the case for Greek exceptionalism). --Damac 10:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with Greek exceptionalism. Category:Greek people by periphery was originally set up to pertain to people of Greek identity from the modern Greece state. Its similar to the Category:American people by state where it states clearly By nationality: American: By state
Your not going to place someone who does not identify as an American of the modern state in this category. Perfect example: there are numerious people of Mexican descent who were born in California before the state became part of the USA; they are not labeled under the Category:American people by state not because of some "exceptionalism" but for the reasons stated above. The same is with the Category:Greek people by periphery ~Mallaccaos, 26May 2006
As regards Category:People from Thessaloniki, there is nothing wrong with creating sub-categories based on the Prefectures of Greece for particular peripheries.--Damac 10:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that people were complaining that they are too many sub-categories..reason why I said what I did regarding Category:People from Thessaloniki. If you want to make sub-categories and place every persons, things and their mother who was born within the modern Greek state's boarders from 3000 years ago to modern times, go ahead, but start a new category. How can people who are of not Greek nationals be put within a category which specifically says: ===Category:Greek people by periphery=== ; same case with American for Americans. ~Mallaccaos, 26May 2006
  • Keep and Clarify: There is nothing wrong with either the reasoning of Mallaccaos or the initial reasoning of Damac. Ethnic cleansing talk would apply if someone forbids the creation of e.g. Category:Filipino economic immigrants in Athens. This is exactly what this attempt for renaming is doing, only instead of doing it for a 1% minority, it's doing it for a 99% majority. I am sure William Allen Simpson has made a logical error, which can be justified by the prevailing prejudice that Greek users are in a constant urge for nationalistic edits, plus misinterpreted misconducted good intentions of user Hectorian not to push things with Greek Macedonians too much by including Pontic Greeks. This error, however, will lead to creating a precedent of not categorising people by ethnicity and place of birth at the same time, about which there is nothing wrong, apart from the need for clarification of the classification standards. Ok?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    1. If these are for only the "modern" state of Greece (after abolishing the monarchy in 1975), you might as well delete the categories entirely, as the 1 or 2 notable Greeks wouldn't significantly populate them!
    2. The very idea that some would be excluded for not being "Greek" enough, or having historical parentage that wasn't "Greek" enough, is repugnant!
    3. Greek Macedonians are "from" the current region known as "Greek Macedonia" that incorporates 3 peripheries. They are "Greek" (Fooian). They are not excluded for having surnames that indicate some ancestor was "Pontic". A notable person that inhabited both NW Turkey and a periphery of Greece would have both categories, as they are "from" both places.
    4. The previous comment about California is incorrect (historical persons that are from the current place called California are listed).
    5. If someone cares about details such as citizenship, place of birth, ethnicity, etc, do it in an article with attribution and references. These are inappropriate to a broad category.
    We don't do ethnic cleansing on Wikipedia. --William Allen Simpson 17:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Modern Greek state means, as stated above, the history which shaped the Modern State of Greece, as it is refrenced in the Wiki article named History of modern Greece, Modern Greece means after the year 1832. ~Mallaccaos, 29May 2006
  2. No one said its not for people who are not "Greek" enough, if that's what people understood from my previous comment, I apologize. Its for people who are Greek nationals. or any other immegrants currently living in the region by periphery, for the modern Greek state means after the year 1832. Like I said the Category:American people by state does the same thing. If they are immegrants, who are living in Greece, then yes they'd be included, but including people like Ataturk in a category which says Greek Nationals, doesn't sound right. As it was stated above, create another caterogy for that which is for ALL people who were born/lived/setteled/ or whatever in the areas which are part of the modern Greek State from ancient times to current times. ~Mallaccaos, 29May 2006
  3. I don't know what the other user what talking about but to me someone who says Pontic Greek means Greek. But whatever. ~Mallaccaos, 29May 2006
  4. I've viewed most of those articles. People born in the state before California became part of the United States, are listed under a specific category of their own: Category:Californios, that someone created. ~Mallaccaos, 29May 2006
  5. Like I said above this category was set up to reflect the Category:American people by state. ~Mallaccaos, 29May 2006
American people by state uses "People from state" and has sub-sub-categories "People from city" --William Allen Simpson 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
William, I understand your concerns that some people do use Wikipedia as forum to play out ethnic disputes. Just a quick question, though: are you going to propose a similar name change for the categories included in the following: Category:Irish people by county, Category:English people by county, Category:French people by place, Category:German_people_by_state, Category:Swiss_people_by_canton, and Category:Italian people by region? They all of use the pattern Natives of .....--Damac 20:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to William's Comment
    1. Modern: Correct, although someone has to identify what he defines as modern. Arguably modern could be since 1821/9, or we could omit the word modern entirely.
    2. Pontic Greeks: Correct, as I said, "misinterpreted. misconducted". They should all be in, because Pontic Greeks are Greeks too.
    3. Ok, same as above.
    4. California: Irrelevant, the category "Californians" has not been defined to include Americans only.
    5. Article: Says who?
    Disallowing/deleting categories of ethnic groups in specific territories is ethnic cleansing.
    Put a clarification/definition note on the category and let it be there...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't understand what the nominator is getting at. A native of some place refers to where someone was born. It has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. In fact, this is a waste of time anyway, because even if the categories are renamed (to the synonymous but longer titles proposed) the same criteria for inclusion will apply - "where was the person in question born?" --Telex 19:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons see my edits on this page. --Hectorian 01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the whole discussion, after editting my first comment and i saw that my name has been used a lot here... I have no idea what William Allen Simpson is trying to do, but all i did was removing people of Greek Pontian descend from the Category:Greek Macedonians. I did not remove any name from categories like: Natives of Thrace or Western Macedonia. The reasons for me doing this were clear enough: 1. cause they belong to the Pontian Greeks (as their organisations and themselves proudly say), and as all the Greeks know-again about subgroups:Cretans, Greek Cypriots, Thessalians, Pontian Greeks, etc-there is nothing bad about this!. 2. cause i did not want to press the situation with users[4] who would say once again that there is no Greek Macedonian in Macedonia, but that the whole population is Pontian Greeks. I really feel sorry that some minor edits of mine gave him the the 'excuse'(?) to push his POV. And once more (in a screaming way): noone is talking about ethnic cleansing!!!! --Hectorian 01:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't find the nominator's arguments convicing. I think the categories are very useful. Miskin 21:53, 30 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:Towns in Sicily

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 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category is empty. Category:Cities and towns in Sicily already exists. AKeen 20:01, 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:Locations in New Hampshire to Category:Townships in New Hampshire

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. (No responses!) Ken Gallager 13:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Locations" in New Hampshire refers to a particular type of township. Legally, they are no different from the communities that are listed in the Townships category. Also, the term "Locations" means, to most people, something quite different from what is actually listed. The proposal is to have all unincorporated municipalities, whether labeled "Location", "Purchase", "Grant", or whatever, be listed in the same category. Ken Gallager 19:45, 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:Billboard Hot Dance Airplay artists, Category:Dance Top 40 acts in United States, and Category:Billboard Hot Dance/Club Play 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 delete. Conscious 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category Category:American dance acts already exists. These three are just unncessary and clutter pages. The categories are to include every artist that has ever charted on the Billboard Hot Dance Airplay, Dance Top 40, and Billboard Hot Dance/Club Play charts since their creation. That is going too far, and I honestly don't see how these categories would be useful to anyone. There are thousands of musicians who could fit into all 3 of these categories, and this will only clutter their articles with useless cats. If this is allowed to continue, people will create categories for the other 45 singles charts Billboard releases weekly as well. --Musicpvm 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • They can only be merged if the non-Americans are removed from the categories first. JW 22:34, 26 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:British scriptwriters to Category:British television writers

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very small category and can only cause confusion. Merge into its parent category:British television writers. There is also a category:british radio writers, but there is not a category:Scriptwriters and that is welcome as radio and television are better kept distinct. Calsicol 18:47, 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:Fictional heroines based on heroes to Category:Fictional heroines

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 speedy merge, the creator of this rcently created category agrees with this proposal, therefore I am speedying this per speedy criterion G7. Hiding Talk 09:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A ridiculously broad category, with very vague and near-useless criteria. So far, it has been applied to a female member of a group named after a male character, the villainous daughter of a male villain, and the female successor of a male character.

I'm not sure what trend this category illustrates or what shared attribute such character has (and apparently it doesn't even include heroism, according to the cat description), other than a possibly-tenuous link to a male character. That's not enough of a link for a category. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Support as per above. Joeyconnick 18:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support CovenantD 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Support if there continues to be a lack of specificity. If it were Category:Fictional heroines based on male archtypes, I would be weakly against. Lady Aleena 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This could be speedied, it appears Chris created this through misunderstanding the cfd process, if I read his comments here right. I'll leave notes for him to clarify if he will allow the category to be speedy deleted. Hiding Talk 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteYes, I was in error. I misunderstood what the CfD outcome was, and then I took it in a direction much better served by an article, which I will be writing. Sorry about the mess; I saw the CfD discussion and thought that no one had gotten around to doing it yet, so I was just trying to be helpful. Because I am the sole contributor, this should be speedily deleted. --Chris Griswold 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 20:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this merge is agreed upon, make sure to clean out non-heroic characters from this category. Scandal (comics), Fatality (comics), Cassandra Nova Scream (comics), Agony (comics), and probably several others are out-and-out villains, and do not belong in Category:Fictional heroines. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still argue that Cassandra Nova has been shown to be a hero in the past, particularly in "Here Comes Tomorrow", but she also makes herself available to Xavier in Excalibur when he needs to prepare himself for dealing with the Scarlet Witch. (Also, isn't she the little girl with the old face in Xorn's special kids class?)
      • Argue about it on Talk:Cassandra Nova and/or WP:COMIC. (Scandal might qualify, too, depending on how heroic you think the Secret Six are.) I don't care strongly one way or another; I'm merely pointing out that many of these characters aren't heroes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vlllains don't belong in the current category either. So you don't have to wait for the vote to finish to move them out --JeffW 01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Chris Griswold reverted Fatality and I think one other; I don't really want to edit war over it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That was before this conversation. I won't touch it again. --Chris Griswold 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay. I've pulled anyone who doesn't seem to be at all heroic (I removed Cassandra Nova, but left including She-Venom, Scream, and the Joker's Daughter, since they're iffy). I also removed one hermaphrodite and a couple characters who aren't based on heroes and are already in the proposed merge cat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 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:Incomplete movie, TV or video lists to Category:Incomplete film, television, or video lists

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 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this category's title inline with the other film categories. Lady Aleena 18:01, 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:Movies filmed in Maryland to Category:Films shot in Maryland

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 00:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this category's title inline with the other film categories. Lady Aleena 18:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete - and turn into a list. When you consider the number of Films shot in... categories some films will be in this makes for a bad precedent. JW 22:26, 26 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:Screenshots of movies and television to Category:Screenshots of films and television

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:Screenshots of films. Conscious 08:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As with other CfRs of mine, I am willing to change this one with more support shown.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 09:55, 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:Reunion movies to Category:Reunion films

edit

Category:Babylon 5 movies to Category:Babylon 5 films

edit

Category:Canadian movie soundtracks to Category:Canadian film soundtracks

edit

Category:Canadian television movies to Category:Canadian television films

edit

Category:Japanese movie studios to Category:Japanese film studios

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. Conscious 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring [these categories' titles] in line with other film categories. Lady Aleena 18:01, 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:Disney Channel original movies to Category:Disney Channel Original Movies 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 no consensus. Conscious 06:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this category's title inline with the other film categories. Lady Aleena 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Upon further review: The DCOM Official Site capitalizes the phrase in every instance, so I think we should leave this one as is for now. Even if it's not trademarked, "Disney Channel original movies" is obviously the preferred use, however antithetical to wp naming conventions. Her Pegship 18:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Disney uses Disney Channel original movies to refer to these and I don't see why we should use a different name. --JeffW 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to change the cfr to Category:Disney Channel Original Movies films, since Disney Channel Original Movies is the full title of this group of films. Lady Aleena 18:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything wrong with Disney Channel Original Movies. Foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin...oh I'm sure you know the rest. --JeffW 01:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, but I must say I find that saying extremely offensive, and I might easily have changed my vote to spite you. It comes across as a personal attack, even if you don't think it should, and I would urge you to try very hard to resist using it. Bhoeble 11:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize to Lady Aleena for the quote. It was inappropriate. I did stop before I got to the really offensive part but I shouldn't have typed it at all. --JeffW 13:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of "film" because this is a series and a proper noun. It should be category:Disney Channel Original Movies. Bhoeble 20:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the CfR. Hope it is to your satisfaction. Lady Aleena 00:02, 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:Fair use movie posters to Category:Fair use film posters

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 to rename. Conscious 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this category's title inline with the other film categories. Lady Aleena 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Support per nom. Her Pegship 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are posters and not films. They are generally known as 'movie posters' and not 'film posters'. A basic google search shows almost 10,000,000 hits for "movie poster" and almost 800,000 hits for "film poster". Adding an 's' to the search increases the hits to over 15,000,000 and 900,000. Vegaswikian 20:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see any reason not to rename it. We have a strong internal bias for using "film" over "movie" - it's virtually in the style guide - and our categories really should reflect Wikipedia's own usage. (We're about the only people to use "disambiguation" in a non-technical sense, but it's established usage and we keep the term in cat names and so forth) Shimgray | talk | 21:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If to be renamed, rename to Category:Fair-use film posters. David Kernow 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just FYI, fair use is not hyphenated here. Lady Aleena 00:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Intriguing. Could you include a link to somewhere where I might learn why?  Thanks, David 07:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You may have a strong internal bias, but that's no reason to call something other than what it is normally known as. --JeffW 01:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Film is convention in Wikipedia. There is no "internal bias" (please AGF). There needs to be consistency. 'Film' is formal -- in keeping with out style -- with 'movie' a colloquialism.The JPStalk to me 18:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't assuming anything but Good Faith. I was just repeating the words of Shimgray when I wrote "strong internal bias".
    • Film is the convention for movies in this wiki but not for posters. Vegaswikian 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The convention covers anything to do with films, that includes the posters thereof.
        -- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 17:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So the vote for renaming Category:Road movies to Category:Road films is also against convention? The discusion there seems to be based on the common name including reasons like 'it's a specific genre with a well known name and the proposed name is just wrong.' That applies here as well, they are movie posters. Vegaswikian 02:27, 30 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:Filipino movies to Category:Filipino 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 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this category's title inline with the other film categories. Lady Aleena 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • This was accidentally relisted. There is a larger discussion here. This was relisted as the cfr box was not on the Category page. Lady Aleena 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Her Pegship 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Caveat lector 19:25, 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:LOTR Movie Trilogy only to Category:Lord of the Rings film trilogy only

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:Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Conscious 05:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this category's title inline with the other film categories. Lady Aleena 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Support per nom. Her Pegship 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aside from the film/movie thing, this name is just awful. I'll suggest something at a later time if I can think of something better. --JeffW 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed... I don't think it makes sense as currently phrased. David Kernow 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went for the rename instead of an outright deletion. I didn't want the LOTRians going up in flames. Lady Aleena 23:59, 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:Road movies to Category:Road 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 keep. Conscious 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this category's title inline with the other film categories. Lady Aleena 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Support per nom. Her Pegship 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's road movies as in road movie. This isn't like the others, it's a specific genre with a well known name and the proposed name is just wrong. Calsicol 18:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Calsicol. Bhoeble 20:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above; "road movie" an established genre name (i.e. treat as if a single word). David Kernow 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Calsicol. --JeffW 01:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Calsicol. An established genre. The JPStalk to me 11:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please consider.
    • We could argue that every film category we have could be "Foo movies" because of local usage, but the WP naming convention (and the Films WikiProject) prefers "film" over "movie".
    • We can redirect the Road movie article to Road film, at which point presumably the user can see the Road films category and go from there.
    • There are plenty of film articles that use the term "road movie" in them, which would be found in a search.
    • We're not requesting that every instance of "movie" should be replaced with "film" - just the category names. (See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films).) ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as above. Rightly or wrongly, "Road movie" is the established term. JW 22:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Calsicol, we prefer to use common names -- ProveIt (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've previously had (moderately heated) debates here to get "television movies" changed to "television films" in the face of opposition from people who insisted that "TV movies" was the only term. In this case, however, "Road movies" is the only correct term and is used in Europe as much as in the US. No-one says "road films". Valiantis 18:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I had never heard of this type of film before I saw it on the list. Renaming it to Road films is better than renaming it to Category:Films about people who waste petroleum products in cars and trucks, which is very POV, so I didn't suggest it originally.
    -- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 03:42, 31 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:Video and movie terminology to Category:Film and video terminology

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 per revised proposal. Conscious 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this category's title inline with the other film categories. Lady Aleena 17:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Support per nom. Her Pegship 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not Category:Film and video terminology...?  Curious, David Kernow 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If more like it your way, I will change the CfR like I did to one above. Lady Aleena 00:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably doesn't matter at all; just intrigued to see the order that had been chosen/evolved previously. Yours, David 07:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It might be better to put film first since films came before videos. I changed the CfR.
          -- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 10:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It looks like you changed the CfR notice on Category:Video and movie terminology but it doesn't link back here correctly since its truncated. Is there an absolute limit on the number of characters in a link including section? If so we may need to rethink what we use for headings in here. --JeffW 15:34, 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:CIA images

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. Conscious 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:Central Intelligence Agency images is used instead. —Markles 15:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might "CIA" here count as use of a widely-recognized abbreviation/acronym, hence keep...?  Unsure, but beginning to think abbreviations in category names not such a bad idea, David Kernow 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support say no to acronyms. Paul 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Caveat lector 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT works wonders. --70.213.207.3 05:00, 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:Marvel Comics movies to Category:Films based on comics by Marvel Comics

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 based on Marvel comics. Conscious 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this category's title inline with the other surrounding categories. Lady Aleena 15:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Marvel Comics is the full name of the company, so even though it sounds odd, it would be Films based on Marvel Comics comics. See the renaming discussion for Category:London Films to Category:London Films films. Lady Aleena 17:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the aforementioned discussion, would Category:Films based on comics by Marvel Comics be a possibility? Her Pegship 18:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the single appearance of "comics."--Mike Selinker 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Marvel Comics is the name of the company that produces the comics. Marvel Comics should not ever be truncated to Marvel in a category title. The naming should inclide the FULL COMPANY NAME and the PRODUCT TYPE. In this case the full company name includes the product type. That does not mean that the two should be combined. I will be looking into the other categories in the parent category to bring all the categories into the same naming scheme. If DC is really DC Comics, then the category name should be Films based on comics by DC Comics if we name this category Films based on comics by Marvel Comics. How many other organizations out there could be called Marvel? Marvel Comics produces much more than comics, so we must be precise.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 05:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not. The name of the company is Marvel Entertainment. They have a comic line (one of several) called Marvel Comics. The film company is Marvel Studios. Everything they do is under the name Marvel. So "Films based on Marvel comics" is fine.--Mike Selinker 15:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the film company is called Marvel Studios, then why not redirect to Category:Films by Marvel Studios or similar. I have checked the Marvel Studios article, and if the information there is accurate then Marvel Studios only seems to produce movies (and possibly TV shows) based on Marvel Comics comics anyway. -- Supermorff 17:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have all Marvel Comic adaptions been done by Marvel Studios?
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 10:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Marvel Studios was founded in the late 1990s in part because so many comic adaptations were horrible: Captain America (1991 film), for example. But this category should include that film, even though I'm sure Marvel Studios would like to pretend it doesn't exist. :^) --Mike Selinker 14:20, 29 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:Haredi rabbis

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. Conscious 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See detailed discussions at Category talk:Orthodox rabbis for the background to this vote. IZAK 11:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too cumbersome, contains many tiny subcategories that are filled with two/four/seven occupants only. Makes it hard to navigate - again listings are not clear cut and duplication of categories is inefficient - many Rabbis are in as many as 3 subcategories of this category. Nesher 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nesher: Haredi Judaism, with its own well-known Haredi rabbis, is a well-defined phenomonon that no-one disputes. To have a category for them is not "too cumbersome" because it is a clear and well-defined movement, with clear sub-categories alloted to Haredi rabbis in Israel, the United States, and Europe. On Wikipedia many people are often in as many as ten sub-categories so being in only three is not bad. The categories are slowly being filled-in to lessen the confusing lumping-together of Orthodox rabbis from opposite religious spectrums in Category:Orthodox rabbis. There are two main Haredi centers: Israel and the United States, and there are two main Haredi sub-divisions: Hasidic and non-Hasidic, and these categories are accurate reflections of that fact. IZAK 11:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete need to cleanup. Duplication of categories, not clear cut definition of boundaries, discriminates between ashkenazi and sepharadi, unclear what certifies Hasid rebbes and not Haredi, why Chabad hassidim are haredim and not hasidic. Frankly, either the Haredi cat should go or the Hasidic cat or make a combined cat, because they merely promote more confusion. --Shuki 21:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shuki: Category:Sephardic Haredi rabbis in Israel does not discrimnate against Sephardic rabbis, more categories for Sephardi rabbis can be created but right now there are very few articles about Sephardi rabbis. No-one disputes that Hasidic Judaism is part of Haredi Judaism, and not the other way around, so it is pointless to create false confusion about this fact. Thus it follows that Hasidic rabbis are a sub-category of Category:Haredi rabbis. Because the numbers of rabbis in these categories had been growing, it was logical to create a sub-category for the Hasidic rabbis, and by definition let all other Haredi rabbis remain in the general Category:Haredi rabbis super-category for the time being. IZAK 11:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this very clear and well defined super-category for rabbis IDENTIFIED with Haredi Judaism. See also my response/s to User:Nesher and User:Shuki above. IZAK 11:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Haredim are a part and parcel of the more common main categorization of directions in Judaism. gidonb 12:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the rabbis in question would identify as such, though possibly in even more granular categories. --Leifern 12:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Haredi <> Hasidic although in observance they are similar. However, dress, philosophy, approach to Halakha, and even poskim relied upon are very different. Compare the world-shaking arguments between The Satmar Rov ZTVK"L and R' Moshe ZTVK"L. These went to the very core of many issues. To put them in the same group, while understandable on a very superficial and unknowledgeable level is a gross misrepresentation of who and what they were and what they represented. This applies all the more so to every other categorical specification where the differences are more extreme and obvious. -- Avi 13:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important distinction. JFW | T@lk 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Strothra 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per IZAK and Avi. Jayjg (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with modifications. A broad classification like this is going to become another Category:Orthodox rabbis in no time, since before the Haskalah, everybody was a haredi or hasidic rabbi, and before the Baal Shem Tov, everybody was a haredi rabbi. Although Nesher states that there are only a few names in the subcategories, that is for lack of articles, not for lack of haredi rabbis. To reduce duplicate classification, I think we should subclassify by century rather than by location, i.e. Sub-category:Haredi rabbis of the 19th century, Sub-category:Haredi rabbis of the 20th century. Classifying by location also makes it look to the uninformed reader that these rabbis' teachings or p'sakim only apply to a certain place. Yoninah 08:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though Yonina is right that this will require subcategories. It should only include modern times, and be divided into Hasidic, Lithuanian, Sephardic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dovi (talk • contribs) 22:50, May 31, 2006.
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:Religious Zionist Orthodox rabbis

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 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See detailed discussions at Category talk:Orthodox rabbis for the background to this vote. IZAK 11:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very subjective and shares same brief as Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis. Many of the Rabbis placed in this category have contentious religious affiliations and it's a gross oversimplification to lump them together as "Religious Zionist Orthodox". Nesher 14:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nesher: You were the one who created the very nebulous Category:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis lumping Haredi, Zionist, and very modern rabbis together. In response, the more specific categories were created to help categorize the growing numbers of Orthodox rabbis who differ in many critical ways. It is no virtue to blur the lines. If it is well-known that a rabbi belongs to more than one category, then he can be placed in both. If it cannot be decide either way, then any Orthodox rabbi can safely remain in Category:Orthodox rabbis, the most neutral category of all. IZAK 10:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - political or poorly titles cat. Virtually same as Modern Orthodox cat and is a poor way of differentiating between American Rabbis and Israeli Rabbis. Some RZ rabbis are actually Haredi as well. --Shuki 21:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shuki: This is not an attempt to differentiate by nationality. There are very often marked differences between Modern Orthodox rabbis and the better known Religious Zionist ones. For example, many left-wing Modern Orthodox rabbis approve of working with Reform and Conservative rabbis, a mark of their modernity, whereas most Religious Zionist rabbis would oppose it, and instead affirm the rights and powers of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate functioning as a vehicle of Religious Zionism. If a rabbi is genuinely identified with both movements then both categories can apply to him, but it is not a reason to delete a good category. IZAK 10:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the Religious Zionist Movement is well-known and those Orthodox rabbis IDENTIFIED with it are also well know. As public figures, the backgrounds and views of all famous Orthodox rabbis are well-known, due to either their religious affiliations or their political views and affiliations, often expounded in their writings and teachings and by the religious and political institutions they are affiliated with. If a rabbi belongs to more than one group he can perfectly justifiably be placed in more than one category, but that does not justify deleting these well-defined categories. See also my response/s to User:Nesher and User:Shuki above. IZAK 10:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Religious Zionists are not a part and parcel of the more common main categorization of directions in Judaism. It combines polictics with religion and combines most of the modern orthodox with some of the haredim. gidonb 12:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but make the criteria for inclusion rather precise. There may be lots of Orthodox rabbis who are Zionist more or less by default, but they may not think of that as the most distinctive characteristic. Michael Melchior belongs in this category, but Norman Lamm probably doesn't. --Leifern 12:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Religious Zionism today is a very specific phenomenon exeplified by political parties such as the Mafdal in Israel. The fact that we all daven daily for Tka B'Shofar Gadol and Es Tzemach Dovid does not make everyone a “Religious Zionist” as the term is understood in modern parlance. Satmar and N'turei Karta fervently wish for the return to Zion and Jerusalem as much as the HaRav Lau in Jerusalem; they differ on the timing and methodology (to be somewhat simplistic). Thus “Religious Zionism” is its own phenomenon and it would be a gave disservice to lump it in with Orthodxy, similat to lumping Egyptian Coptic priests with Roman Catholics; they are both Orthodox in comparison with Episcopalians, for example. -- Avi 14:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important distinction. JFW | T@lk 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Strothra 19:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per IZAK and Avi. Jayjg (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IZAK and Avi. Yoninah 08:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very important, though should be renamed simply Religious Zionist rabbis. Dovi 03:51, 1 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:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis

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 22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See detailed discussions at Category talk:Orthodox rabbis for the background to this vote. IZAK 11:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's a redundant category and has no occupants Nesher 14:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the request of the maker of this cat. --Shlomke 05:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's empty. Meaningless category. IZAK 10:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not used and unclear. gidonb 12:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. JFW | T@lk 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be taken care of by having the member be in Category:Orthodox rabbis and a Category for date of birth/death. -- Avi 14:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. --Strothra 19:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meaningless. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Yoninah 08:00, 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:Dames Commander of the British Empire to Category:Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire

edit

Category:Commanders of the British Empire to Category:Commanders of the Order of the British Empire

edit

Category:Officers of the British Empire to Category:Officers of the Order of the British Empire

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. Conscious 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct style of people that hold these honors is ["...of the Order of..."]. Eva db 11:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename [all] per nom. Bhoeble 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. David Kernow 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the three categories above. Knights Commander, Knights Grand Cross and Dames Grand Cross should probably also be done Dr pda 08:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT wasn't Knights Commander merged with Knights? 132.205.93.90 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a way to rename all of the subcategories here. Right now, there is only one that follows the ["...of the Order of the British Empire"] format. Can we do a blanket rename of these categories?--Eva db 06:35, 30 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:United States Congressional districts to Category:United States congressional districts

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 08:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for capitalization. —Markles 10:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Congress is a proper noun which should NOT be lowercased. Lady Aleena 14:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Congressional", however, is not a proper noun. If the name were to be changed to "Districts of the United States Congress" — then it would be capitalized. —Markles 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Districts of the United States Congress. Lady Aleena 00:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Districts of the United States Congress per Lady Aleena, if this politically correct politically. David Kernow 08:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not correct, politically. —Markles 12:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:United States Congressional Districts -- In my experience, both Congressional and District are title case. Officially and Googled. These are frequently initials; for example, CD15. Only Wikipedia has the odd form "Congressional district". --William Allen Simpson 08:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not true. Google gives the exact same result for "congressional district." The House website uses lowercase "district."—Markles 12:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Yes, the Google results are the same, you are talking about the query itself, while I'm talking about the content of the results:
        1. "they show the Congressional District overlaid on top of State and county boundaries" (nationalatlas.gov)
        2. "Statewide Congressional District Map" (www.senate.ca.gov)
        3. "Congressional District Data File" (socsci.colorado.edu)
        4. "Population and Housing Characteristics for the Congressional Districts" (www.census.gov)
      2. I cited above the Official "Search all Representatives House websites, listed by State and Congressional District." You just cited "The number preceding the name is the Member's district". (Note that Member is always capitalized, too.)
      3. Lowercase "district" is used when "congressional" is also lower case: "Each congressional district elects one representative."
      4. The only mixed case example in the first 40 is Wikipedia or a clone. It's driving me crazy that Wikipedia just makes up its own standards! Whatever happened to No Original Research?
      --William Allen Simpson 18:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that the category should not have mixed case.
        In those examples you've provided:
        1. Senate.ca.gov also capitalizes "Map".
        2. Colorado.edu also capitalizes "Data" and "File".
        3. Census.gov also capitalizes "Housing" and "Characteristics".
        4. The Official House site also capitalizes "State" and "Representatives".
      • All of which means those examples aren't good for determining what should or shouldn't be capitalized.
      • My rename request is to have BOTH lower case:
—Markles 18:38, 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:Nursing schools

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 Speedy keep. Speedy criteria G7, since the requestor agrees with the reasons to keep. Vegaswikian 21:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all articles are now in the category:Nursing schools by country --Vince 09:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the "by country" category does not belong in the parent category, which does not contain any other "by country" categories. I have added the nursing school article to this category. Bhoeble 09:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other articles that may go in the category apart from nursing school? --Vince 13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think that since everything is in the by country category that this logical higher level category should be removed. This category really needs to remain to fit into the form used by the parent Category:Schools by subject or specialty. Vegaswikian 17:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Agree with Vegaswikian, also there would be no place for articles about nursing schools in general. ProveIt (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having given it some thought, I am now inclined to agree to with this argument also --Vince 09:07, 26 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:Based on Catholic Encyclopedia to Category:Incorporates Catholic Encyclopedia

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:Derived from Catholic Encyclopedia. Conscious 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per talk page, "based on" is inaccurate for most cases. Stevage 08:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you like - very wordy though. How about just "Category:Material from Catholic Encyclopedia"? or even "Derived from Catholic Encyclopedia"? Stevage 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have chosen the latter as I imagine the relevant articles are derived from the Catholic Encyclopedia rather than merely incoporating material from it. Thanks, David 10:29, 30 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:Women of the Suffrage movement to Category:British suffragists

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 per nom. Conscious 07:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a British category. There are a couple of other national categories of suffragists and the parent category is called category:Suffragists. This category is not named after a specific movement, indeed its blurb says there were two, but some of the women belonged to neither. Rename Bhoeble 08:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Agree rename as per Kernow. Caveat lector 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree rename as per Kernow (or as per nom as second choice). Calsicol 11:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to suffragette, this term was originally used only for more radical members of the women's suffrage movement (the Women’s Social and Political Union - WPSU). As the category states explcitly it is for both members of the WPSU and the (less radical) National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, I would suggest the more inclusive "suffragist" is preferable. Valiantis 18:46, 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:Papuan society to Category:Papua New Guinean society

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 22:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename; reason: inaccuracy. All articles and subcategories in this category refer to Papua New Guinea, not (one of the various meanings of) Papua. Common misunderstanding - Papuan does not mean Papua New Guinean. See similar renames approved recently for Papuan music and Papuan culture. Wantok 02:32, 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:Ancient people by ethnicity

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 22:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into parent. Same as parent Category:Ancient peoples, and all 5 entries are also in the parent. --William Allen Simpson 01:51, 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:Trade unions 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 to "Trade unions of country". Conscious 07:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a copy of a discussion which has taken place at WikiProject Organized Labour over the last couple weeks. I have moved it here as a step toward finalizing what appears (to me) to be a consensus to change the sub-categories of Category:Trade unions by country to the Category:Trade unions of X format.

Additional discussion is of course welcome. Bookandcoffee 00:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm back with this again. About 2 months ago I started a discussion about changing the naming format of this cat [5]. There was no consensus for a decision, so I wanted to continue the debate here instead.

I've created many of these cats in the last few months, and the longer I work on it the more I'd like the name format to be:

The following list shows three reasons why.

There are names that don't fit well with the Category:****ian trade unions format.

There are names that would be very confusing with the current format.

-

-

And this is a more general complaint about the format. I know these are countries, but they are also languages and it seems unnecessary to have this confusion.

In the end it is just a cat name, but I would like to see it consistent. For an idea of what has generally been done, you might want to look at Category:Categories by country and see what format is used by related cats such as Category:Economies by country. As well, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) has general guidelines and discussion.

One of the main points I focused on in the first discussion was that there are unions (such as the AFL-CIO) which cross over national boundaries, so it would be clearer to identify them as (for example) Trade unions in Canada, as opposed to Canadian trade unions.

And finally, I'll confess to nefariously naming a number of cats with the "in ****" format already. It just looks better. :)

If we can establish a consensus here, (either way) then I'll post it at WP:CFD.

Rename. As noted. --Bookandcoffee 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of copy from: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour#Category:Trade unions by country.

  • Rename to "trade unions" of Bhoeble 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't the plural of "trade union" "trades union"? Bluap 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Trade Unions based in X - grammatically the best, semantically the best, and "Trade Unions of X" just sounds awful. Stevage 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Trade unions of X" -- it doesn't sound awful to me. --William Allen Simpson 08:19, 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.

Science fiction video game hybrid categories

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 recategorize and delete. Conscious 07:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no reason for Category:Science fiction adventure games and Category:Science fiction computer and video role-playing games to exist. It is far better to categorize the games as Category:Science fiction computer and video games with Category:Adventure games or Category:Computer and video role-playing games if applicable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am appending my nomination with Category:Fantasy computer and video role-playing games and Category:Fantasy adventure games for the same reasons. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakup of categories
categories Adventure games Computer and video role-playing games Science fiction computer and video games Fantasy computer and video games
Fantasy computer and video role-playing games No Yes No Yes
Fantasy adventure games Yes No No Yes
Science fiction computer and video role-playing games No Yes Yes No
Science fiction adventure games Yes No Yes No

To the closing admin: Here is exactly how I propose how the categories should be divided. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:21, 29 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_23&oldid=1108830499"