Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 29 December 31 >

December 30[edit]

Category:National Reality Television participants[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Reality Television participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as nom. EJBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just keeps pilin' it on, huh? For the uninitiated, this is another bad category from a persistent and willfully ignorant user. Redundant with all the other "participants" categorized, overly, and perhaps intentionally broad, utterly miscapitalized and seemingly vandalous attempt at clutter. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I grow increasingly baffled as to why EJBanks devotes so much time to creating and sporadically populating categories when fellow Wikipedians turn right around and undo every single thing he has edited. This category is incorrectly capitalized. Category is unclear. What is "national" reality television? What kind of participants? Doczilla 10:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - very similar edits to User:BatmanFan who was eventually banned as a vandal account. CovenantD 10:49, 31 December 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 section.

Category:Historical events in cryptography[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical events in cryptography to Category:History of cryptography
  • Rename, better description of the category's current content and more inline with naming conventions. Pascal.Tesson 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, I agree that History is more inclusive and should be preferred. --Bejnar 05:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match its parent and about half of its peers in Category:History of technology. ×Meegs 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Greg Grahame 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Consistency is good --- Skapur 02:37, 4 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Feminist artists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Feminist artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete. Categorization of entertainers by opinion is not encyclopaedic. -Severa (!!!) 20:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep feminism is not an opinion, its a political standing, an important one. Anti/Pro war are always mentioned in celebrity articles, anti/pro choice/life for politicians, anti-pro gay rights for religious figures. cmonqrc2006/email 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but only if it's limited to artist whose work is feminist or is meant to serve feminist activism. We have Category:Latter Day Saint artists and Category:Socialist realism artists. Although inclusion does not necessarily mean notability, "Feminist artist" gets over 300 Google Scholar hits[1] and "Feminist art" gets far more.[2] That we have no article called Feminist art is likely due to a male bias here. (And I'm saying that as a totally non-feminist person, I'm nearly an anti-feminist. Still see Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Art & Architecture/F, number 86-87, for a justification.)--T. Anthony 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page a rename to Category:Feminists in the arts was suggested. I'm not sure this is necessary, but I'd be good with that.--T. Anthony 00:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vague and not likely to be used with restraint. Name causes confusion between visual arts, other high arts and entertainment. Most of the categories mentioned above should be deleted as well. Twittenham 01:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too vague and an appeal for POV. At best "militant feminist artists" could be considered,and even then...Circeus 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category is very useful in my opinion. However, I agree that "feminists in the arts" would be a better name for the category given some of the people included. If Wikipedia does not already have an article on Feminist art, it definitely needs one. I once went to a seminar on feminist art. I will start an article as soon as I have time. Andrea Parton 06:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. Do not categorize by opinion, which changes anyway. A list can be properly annotated with sources confirming when each person identified him/herself as a feminist. Doczilla 10:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are all sorts of shades of opinion and people change their opinions. Putting people into boxes like this is kind of like claiming disputed territory. Pinoakcourt 11:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree that feminist is as legit of a political stance as any, and can very much influence somebody's art. i do like the idea of keeping it limited to folks who make feminist art instead of artists who consider themselves feminists though.Murderbike 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classifying people by opinion is a bad idea as there are shades of opinion but categories deal in simplistic absolutes. Chicheley 14:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per T. Anthony and Murderbike. This category should not be difficult to patrol and keep from being overused. — coelacan talk — 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clicking on a few articles suggests it hasn't been well patrolled up to now, so I decline to trust that it will be in the future. Greg Grahame 01:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Opinions by subject are too vague for encyclopedic value. TheMindsEye 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But should only be used for artists who demonstrate feminist principles in their work. Owen 07:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And who is supposed to enforce that? Piccadilly 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First, the word "feminist" may be vaguely interpreted. Second, grouping people based on viewpoint is not necessarily a good idea. Third, it would be more useful to create an article describing feminism in the arts rather than a category listing feminists in the arts; the article would be able to say much more on this issue and would avoid trying to categorize people based on a vague criterion. Dr. Submillimeter 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a very real group of people --- Skapur 02:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classification by opinion soon becomes too opinionated. Piccadilly 16:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Feminist art is a specific type of art. --lquilter 13:48, 5 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Lists of fictional characters on HBO television series[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete under CSD G7 Circeus 02:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of fictional characters on HBO television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created this category pretty much by mistake, and it has never been used. I was looking at a character list and one of the categories didn't quite seem to fit so creating this seemed, at the time, to be a good idea. Since then months have gone by and this category has never been used. It is really too specific to be worth making a list out of.JeffStickney 19:00, 30 December 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 section.

Category:Rabbits as pets[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename from Category:Rabbits as pets to Category:Pet rabbits

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 section.

Alien[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename as Alien (film series)--Boxnon 12:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom as honestly I'd take "alien actors" to mean "actors from another planet" and then double-take.~ZytheTalk to me! 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I can't see the benfit here, naming conventions have been followed as far as I can see. Mallanox 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit is removing the possible confusion of The Day the Earth Stood Still with Aliens. --Bejnar 05:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Other series have involved Aliens. Some comic series have involved the Alien xenomorphs. (Does this even need a category in the first place? The title links them all anyway.) Doczilla 10:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I can't tell "Alien films" are films about aliens or by aliens. -Freekee 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would like to counter propose that Alien films be merges with Alien series and the other two catgories be left as they are. I haven't seen any films made by Aliens, I really must get out more. Mallanox 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the actors category as we don't do films by actor categories. Mallanox merge suggestion also make sense (except for the actor category). The actor category could become a list. Otherwise, no problem with the rename. -- Samuel Wantman 05:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, this is to disam between "movies about extraterrestrials" and the Alien series of movies. As far as Sam's suggestion to delete the actor's category, I want to mention that while he is correct for most films, a possible exception to that rule is when the category covers multiple films in a series. Personally I don't have a strong preference for keeping or deleting, but the fact that the category covers multiple movies simultaneously might make it an exception to the rule against categorizing into film-by-actor. Dugwiki 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why have an exception? So what if it is more than one movie. Most of these actors have appeared in dozens of films. Letting categories like this survive is just asking for more of them to proliferate, and next thing we know it will be like the TV categories. This can be made into a list if the information is important. -- Samuel Wantman 01:00, 3 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Shopping malls in Saskatchewan[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shopping malls in Saskatchewan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I depopulated this category by merging all articles to Saskatoon per WP:LOCAL (yes, all the malls in Saskatchewan that have articles happen to be in Saskatoon). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-30 08:50Z

  • Keep as a parent category so that the articles can be reached on a by-topic basis from category:Buildings and structures in Saskatchewan (I will add it to that one). Hawkestone 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to have made a right mess of things as I can't find the Saskatoon category. Hawkestone 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI: [3]. — Instantnood 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe there was some mis-communication. As I said in the nomination, I merged the articles to the article Saskatoon. Category:Saskatoon was never involved. What do you mean by "[I] have made a mess of things"? —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 02:10Z
          • So are you proposing to delete the category? — Instantnood 20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, sorry I was unclear. This is a nomination to delete the category. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 01:01Z
  • Comment: Aren't the malls in, say, Regina, not notable enough to have articles? — Instantnood 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, those malls deserve to be mentioned in their parent locale, but not their own articles, so no need for this category. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-01 01:02Z
  • Keep if for no other reason than to keep Category:Shopping malls in Canada consistent. --- Skapur 02:43, 4 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Scouting organizations and associations in Sweden[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scouting organizations and associations in Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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 section.

Category:Scouting organizations and associations by country[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scouting organizations and associations by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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 section.

Category:Scouting organizations and associations in Scandinavia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scouting organizations and associations in Scandinavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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 section.

Category:Facilities of the United States Air Force tree[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct United States Air Force bases to Category:Closed facilities of the United States Air Force
Category:United States Air Force bases slated for closure to Category:Facilities of the United States Air Force slated for closure
Category:United States Air Force bases slated for realignment to Category:Facilities of the United States Air Force slated for realignment
  • Rename, standard naming convention (X of Y), also per discussion at WP:MILHIST United States military history task force. NDCompuGeek 07:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I suppose you meant to include 'Air Force' in the 2nd rename. Hmains 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • thanks, Hmains - changed nomination to reflect your good eyes and my bad typing.... NDCompuGeek 22:25, 30 December 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 section.

Category:Turkey's Waterfalls[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was deleted, as empty. David Kernow (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkey's Waterfalls into Category:Waterfalls of Turkey
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 section.

Category:Chinese universities[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Universities in mainland China. the wub "?!" 09:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese universities to Category:Universities in the People's Republic of China
Category:Chinese universities to Category:Universities in mainland China

*Rename, this category covers the PRC (and is described as "Universities in the People's Republic of China"). Note that Category:Universities and colleges in the Republic of China already exists to cover the other China. Timrollpickering 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Change nom per User:Instantnood. Timrollpickering 11:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolute oppose a category titled Mainland China. The naming scheme has been to have the PRC named category as top-level and any administrative division (provinces, the ARs, the SARS, the municipalities, etc) with their own subcats. Mainland China is not an administrative division, it's a biased political term used to divide some parts of the country from the rest. (viewing history), the original nomination is correct. XX in/of the PRC. SchmuckyTheCat 16:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why is mainland China a political term? In what way is it biased? Towards whose view is it biased? Do you know the term is what the PRC government itself uses and prefers, and is used by both the governments of Hong Kong and Macau (as well as across the strait by the ROC government)? Meanwhile, please be reminded that SARs are not SARS. — Instantnood 20:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      Hu Jintao, president of the PRC, spoke of " 扩大内地同香港、澳门的交流合作 " in his new year's speech [4] (translation in Xinhua English report was " expand the exchanges and cooperation between the mainland and the two special administrative regions (SARs) of China " [5]). Is he using mainland [China] as a " biased political term ", and using the term to " to divide some parts of the country from the rest ", as you suggested? — Instantnood 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These have all been answered 1000 times every time this issue comes up here's the basics: The PRC has 33 political sub-divisions, not three, which this reduces it to. This context of "mainland" reduces the core part of the nation of China to the title of a lesser part of it because of the existence of HK/MO/TW. No other country gets this treatment because of the political situations of it's constituent divisions. SchmuckyTheCat 23:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bother to take a look at the evidence presented at Wikipedia talk:categorisation? What do those examples suggest? As for the division issue, where in the constitution or in any law is special administrative regions defined as administrative divisions, in the same manner as provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities do? — Instantnood 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. — Instantnood 20:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming to People's Republic of China is fine. Let's all calm down. Let's say we have an edit war, over Category:Universities in the United States. One wants to put Category:Alabaman universities, Category:Alaskan universities, etc. into a category called Category:Universities in the 50 States of the United States, while another wants those state categories to exist in parallel with Category:Puerto Rican universities, etc. Which side is better? Personally, I'd say that the side with the least complications (i.e. the one where the states and territories exist in parallel) is best. -- ran (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From a legal point of view, the SARs of Hong Kong and Macau are entities set up by the Central Government of the PRC, with all of their authority derived from powers vested in them by the Central Government of the PRC, and (legally, though of course not practically) subject at any time to the whims of the PRC. In other words, if the NPC has a particularly evil day and votes 3000-0 to annul the SAR governments, annul the special SAR citizenship of Hong Kong and Macau citizens, and forcibly annex Hong Kong and Macau to Guangdong Province, this would be within the laws of the PRC.
    • Yes, this would violate the Basic Laws of HKSAR and MSAR. However, the Basic Laws are pieces of legislation passed by the NPC. The NPC is legally able to rescind legislation passed by itself.
    • Yes, this would be grossly against the letter and spirit of the Joint Declarations. However, those are Declarations, not international treaties; even if they were treaties, there is nothing in the declarations about withdrawal from them, nor penalties thereof; the SARs are expressed as the "basic policies" as "decided upon" and "declared" by the PRC, which can be argued as nonbinding; and in any case, the PRC can simply argue that new legislation passed by the NPC supersedes the Joint Declaration in time and therefore legal force. Perhaps Margaret Thatcher should have negotiated harder, but history is a done deal.
    • Yes, this will immediately torch off demonstrations, massive international condemnation, declarations of independence etc., and of course such an annullation, passed by a nondemocratic legislature, would be morally indefensible and practically disastrous, but that's another matter altogether unrelated to the legality of this move.
  • So in short, you can call HKSAR and MSAR whatever you want, administrative divisions, puppet regimes, feudal duchies, or rubber duckies, but their legal status is dependent on the PRC central government. I suppose that's why Taiwan doesn't trust this entire SAR deal. -- ran (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm afraid you're getting too far. The NPC has the supreme authority to do whatever it wants for the State, but that's irrelevant to the subject matter here. Practically the Hong Kong and Macao governments are their own administrations in matters such as, the case here, education, whereas the government of the PRC is its own administration, responsible only for the rest of the PRC, i.e. the mainland. In comparison, each of the fifty states of the US, and each of its unincorporated territories, are their own. On the other hand, as from the perspective of constitutional and legal studies, there's no evidence to justify whether or not special administrative regions are administrative divisions. See articles 30 and 31 of the 1982 Constitution of the PRC, and laws such as the Regulations on Special Economic Zones in Guangdong Province (广东省经济特区条例). Both Article 31 and the Regulations aforementioned use the concept of "establish" (设置 or 设立), rather different from Article 30. — Instantnood 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. People's Republic of China and Mainland China do not mean the same thing. Michael G. Davis 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note to closer: I'm convinced Michael G Davis is a puppet, but I don't know of who. SchmuckyTheCat 00:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Universities in the People's Republic of China, but not "Mainland China". Mainland China is not an appiopriate category title as per SchmuckyTheCat, and as per endless prior discussions.--Huaiwei 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nomination. What so wrong with Mainland China? - Privacy 04:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename is needed, but I see what both sides are saying. Although I'm pretty convinced that neither of them is the best solution (ever)... If I were only given these two choices, mainland China has my vote. I guess that makes me a rename per nom?-Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:42, 9 January 2007 (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 section.

KLF[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename as infopage name.WebAsset 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? They were often referred to as "KLF" and the "The" is cumbersome in this context I think. --kingboyk 10:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (WP:KLF)[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 section.

Category:Abercrombie & Fitch models[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we've done models by company before. See June 9th discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listify in main article - A&F models strikes me as being the same sort of elite fraternity as Victoria's Secret models is a sorority. A&F and in particular the A&F catalogs from a few years back are very notable and controversial. Otto4711 05:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Since the Victoria's Secret models category was deleted, that kind of shoots the kneecaps out of my argument. The number is small enough that listing them in the article doesn't strike me as unreasonable. Otto4711 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing is stopping making this a list and linking the list to each article. -- Samuel Wantman 07:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many previous discussions. Listify, if wanted. - jc37 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clothing catalogues are not notable by any stretch of the imagination, even if they have been commented on by the trash media. Do not listify as this information does not belong in an encyclopedia. Hawkestone 15:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP If this category has been made before and deleted but recreated by other poeple that means theres an interest in it and that is precedent for keeping it according to wikipedia policy. A&F models are very notable there are only about 7 of them a year and they ARE NOT CATELOGUE MODELES, A&F doesn't have a cateologue, it did for like 5 years and that was it. How would i listify it if it were deleted? well it doesn't matter if its trash media or not and whether you consider CNN or SF Gate to be trash its media and makes it notable.qrc2006/email 23:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivia. Twittenham 01:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivia/overcategorization. This kind of thing is why Cindy Crawford once had over a hundred categories for her one article. Categorizing people by every individual job they ever had is impractical. Doczilla 10:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we should eliminate all of these or people will start using those we keep as precedents to keep ever more obscure model categories. Chicheley 14:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Dugwiki 19:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doczilla. — coelacan talk — 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable category --- Skapur 02:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- modelcruft -- 62.25.109.196 12:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable category. Piccadilly 16:14, 4 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:Articles referenced by the press[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, rename. Timrollpickering 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles referenced by the press to Category:Pages referenced by the press
  • Rename, not all pages with this template are, in fact, articles. For example, see Image talk:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg and Wikipedia talk:Last topic pool. Picaroon 03:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there a reason that it wouldn't be better to just have 3 separate categories, rather than rename? - jc37 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It must have been a thrill to see that Wikipedia was noticed by the press in the early days, but nowadays it is old hat and tracking these references is a waste of time. Hawkestone 15:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since when has it not been this page's business to delete categories? Deleting a category does not mean that the material cannot be legitimately covered in another way. If not deleted then rename. Chicheley 14:23, 2 January 2007 (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 section.

Category:University of Detroit alumni[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:University of Detroit Mercy alumni, to match University of Detroit Mercy. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:56, 30 December 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 section.

Colleges and universities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: hippocratic rename: Where both "universities" and "colleges" are used, they will be put in that order. Otherwise, no change.--Mike Selinker 18:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename some or all to a consistent name form, currently there's a mixture of "colleges", "universities", "colleges and universities" and "universities and colleges". Note that "college" has multiple meanings around the world, not always country specific. I've nominated all the non-national ones so that a full consensus can be sought. (Adding the national ones would make this list nearly four times longer! Also there are country specific criteria to handle there.) Timrollpickering 01:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking through all the categories, "Universities and colleges" appears to be the most common form (even more so when looking at the "XXX in Country" ones), so I'd recommend renaming all the ones not yet in this form to this name form, except where the category is shown to be university or college specific or where it's using an official title. Timrollpickering 01:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Note to closing admin. I know how long a nomination like this takes to put on the Working page for the bots, so please drop me a message when closing and I'll produce the list for you. Timrollpickering 01:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Oppose blanket change. In the United States colleges and universities are largely the same thing, but in most other countries most colleges are emphatically and officially not universities. Craig.Scott 03:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Universities and colleges" was adopted as a term for transnational articles and categories precisely because of this difference in terminology. Virtually all of the categories that don't already use "universities and colleges"/"colleges and universities" are transnational. I opted not to list the individual country categories because of this (although these are a bit of a mess as well - some are either underpopulated or are using "universities and colleges" in the name when only containing universities). But for the ones transcending countries there needs to be consistency, at the very least in the name ordering. Timrollpickering 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons given. If there are any that should not be renamed, simply strike the entry. I looked over the list and did not see any obvious ones that should not be here. Vegaswikian 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Many of the categories are ambiguous or confusing as they stand. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to College and University / Colleges and Universities standard, if for no other reason than alphabetical order. - jc37 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose above. A simple alphabetical standard will become a huge obstacle to navigability. Breaking these universities and colleges country by country is fine. One more point: with all due respect, I don't see any reason to categorise universities and colleges by religiosity in this century. - Aditya Kabir 11:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "A simple alphabetical standard will become a huge obstacle to navigability." - Please explain/clarify? - jc37 13:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: How do you propose to find particular universities from a category that features thousands of them? You'd have to know the particular names then. If that holds than the very idea of having categories becomes redundant. The longer and over burdened lists are already getting a lot of attention. - Aditya Kabir 19:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that either I'm misunderstanding you, or that you're misunderstanding the nom, or me. As far as I know, there is no request to merge any of these, just rename. And what I meant by "alphabetical" was to have "College" before "University" as the naming convention for each category name. Hope that clarifies. - jc37 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Misunderstanding I was. Apologize I do. - Aditya Kabir 03:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment regarding categorizing universities and colleges by religion: Some of those categories by religion do seem antiquated. However, because some religious organizations exert substantial control over the governance, curriculum, and other policies of their affiliated institutions, these categories can have significant meaning. --orlady 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - even in the U.S., there is a difference between colleges (usually 4-year institutions that grant bachelors degrees with a limited subject range) and universities (usually institutions that can grant masters and doctorates in a variety of majors). However, "Institutions of higher learning" is definitely too cumbersome a category, and splitting the category into "Colleges" and "Universities" would confuse most (if not all) editors trying to get things straight. Oakland Community College (2-year), Jamestown State College (4-year), Minot State University (8+ year [doctorate]), whatever - I think renaming the categories to to "Universities and colleges" is definitely a step in the right direction. NDCompuGeek 16:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revision - I meant to say renaming categories to "Universities and colleges of X" or "Colleges and universities of X" ("Colleges and universities affiliated with Christians", "Colleges and universities affiliated with Mormonism", "Colleges and universities of North Dakota", etc. Therefore my support would be for a case-by-case and not a blanket change.... late night last night, sorry.... NDCompuGeek 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all Some at least of these are better as they are, so this is the wrong approach. Twittenham 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which ones are better left as they are? Vegaswikian 01:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I realize now that I made my earlier comment without specifying that it was a vote in favor of the proposal. So, consider this my vote! And just as another comment, this would be incredibly helpful for those of us who devote most of our edits to university and college articles. I can't tell you how many times I hit dead ends trying to remember the exact names of categories, since so few follow the same format. Not only do I think this is a smart change, but it's one I'd personally get some benefit from, so thanks for suggesting it. Beginning 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't even know what the proposed changes are, but some of the ones that currently use "colleges and universities" are fine and so are some of those that don't. Pinoakcourt 11:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You don't know what the proposal is, and therefore why it's made, but you're still opposing it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This was never likely to get far as it isn't even a concrete proposal. Any items of concern can be nominated individually. Chicheley 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support However you missed this one, Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Also, the religion of a school is very important if it is a religious school such as Brigham Young University or Bob Jones University. Unlike Harvard University which started as a religious school, but would no longer be considered such.Mgroop 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Consistency is good --- Skapur 02:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • General support - There may be some exceptions that can be handled on a case-by-case basis, but I support having a general naming convention for this. My preference is "colleges and universities", but if there's no consensus, "universities and colleges" is fine too. I think that most related lists use the term "colleges and universities" (see lists of colleges and universities and List of colleges and universities in the United States). —Cswrye 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to universities and colleges, except for country-specific categories for countries where the word college (or its equivalence in other languages) never refers to tertiary/post-secondary educational institutions. — Instantnood 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blanket change — in particular "University museum" is a standard term and there are no matching "college museums" for example, so I would prefer to keep Category:University museums" as it it. — Jonathan Bowen 01:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blanket change - the technical difference between college and university is relevant but irrelevant to the purpose of the category, anyone looking for the category for research into either will either know the difference or not be entirely distracted by the difference. I believe there are more significant issues with the difference between tertiary, postsecondary and higher education. The blanket change would provide for a much more user-friendly organization and should be coupled with a more critical approach to categorizing subcategories within categories. --Kenneth M Burke 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_30&oldid=1115248185"