Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22[edit]

Category:Anti-Aging Medicine[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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 05:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I created a category Category:Anti-Aging medicine instead which has a lower-case "m" for medicine to be consistent with the other specialties. (I left the Aging as capitalized). The category with lower-case "m" is populated, the upper-case "M" category is empty. --Ben Best 23:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Shouldn't the "A" in "Aging" be lowercase? 24.19.184.243 05:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Street Names List to Category:Street names by city[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Streets and squares by city. Conscious 18:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for capital letters, and a category with a 'list' should probably be a list. It currently has two entries and a significant potential to grow, so I think renaming it with 'by city' seems to be the best thing to do. Support merge per Chicheley too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jewish day 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 Keep --William Allen Simpson 05:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I propose to delete this category and move its contents into Category:Jewish schools, which it is a needless sub-category of. This is because there are already separate categories for Jewish universities and Jewish seminaries and therefore the sole contents of Category:Jewish schools would be "day-schools" (all schools are "day schools", unless we're talking boarding schools of which there aren't any Jewish ones on wikipedia and that would be a sub-cat of Jewish schools anyway), so why the needless duplication?. Also, I refer you to the Day school article, which is tiny and obviously not the fulcrum of educational writing on wikipedia. The implication being, that the term "day schools" is essentially:

  • A) Parochial, a term used almost entirely in North America, whereas wikipedia is international
  • B) Not a widely used term and in fact a term increasingly outdated and irrelevant; school classifications are more specfic nowadays and based on age group and/or style of education (according to the wikipedia {{Schools}} template)

Oh, and of course the sub-categories would be renamed:

  1. Category:Conservative Jewish day schools to Category:Conservative Jewish schools
  2. Category:Modern Orthodox Jewish day schools to Category:Modern Orthodox Jewish schools
  3. Category:Pluralistic Jewish day schools to Category:Pluralistic Jewish schools
  4. Category:Reform Jewish day schools to Category:Reform Jewish schools

Hence, I am strongly in favour of deleting the Jewish day schools cat, which means exactly the same thing as Jewish schools and has exactly the same remit as the latter. In the process, some of the hindersome middleman bureaucracy will also be purged. Many thanks, Nesher

  • Do it - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Nesher - Telzer 14:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote for now, but I believe that the term "day school" is to contrast to "Hebrew school" programs, in which students who attend secular public schools attend weekend, late afternoon, or evening classes, usually preparatory to a bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah. The other sort are probably seldom if ever notable as individual institutions (the oldest in a country might be notable, or something like that), but the phenomenon as a whole would merit an article, and there might be groupings of schools that would merit an article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "Hebrew school" is misleading. It really refers to Chadorim and cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be understood as a real type of school, because educational activities are occuring in/on the "weekend, late afternoon, or evening" only, essentially just "classes" or a course. Hence, there really (at least in this day and age) isn't so much in parallel between "Hebrew schools" and "day schools" to the extent that the latter usage would be influenced by the former's existence. This is also due in part to the decline of traditional Hebrew schools/Cheders, as more parents opt out of the Jewish educational system completely while others send their offspring to fully-fledged schools Nesher
  • Keep - "Jewish schools" does not mean exactly the same thing as "Jewish day schools." A school can mean a primary school, secondary school, or a university, while a "day school," in this sense, excludes universities. It's true that Category:Jewish schools is primarily for what we know as "Jewish day schools," but to use that name on a cat full of day schools, with no universities, would mean imprecision and ambiguity. I think it's fine like it is now. --DLandTALK 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per DLand. Or, in the alternative, rename to something appropriate and less confusing. But "day schools" seems to me a legitimate subset. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Dland and Briangotts. While the majority 'might' be, certainly not all Schools are day schools and I challenge anyone with this claim to produce a source or otherwise risk claiming WP:OR. De-subseting does not do justice. If we try comparing this with other parochial schools (why are Jewish schools missing from that article?) then we see that there is really no accepted convention yet and at least the Jewish articles are slightly more categorized. The minimal amount of articles on Islamic education is certainly lacking to form a consensus on how to cat religious 'schools' in general. If anything, it seems that the Catholic, Christian, and Muslim schools should be expanded to day and sunday schools because they certainly do exist as well. --Shuki 07:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all entries into two categories:
But then is it not true that most schools are day schools so is that distinction necessary? Day school is then nothing more then a name and not a category. Not sure if I still agree with my suggestion. Let's see where the discussion goes. Vegaswikian 21:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- sure the Country Day schools movement (and the concomitant Jewish Day schools) is US centric, but I'm sure you can fit whatever "Jewish posh schools" you like in the category -- and Reverse merge Category:Jewish schools as the few entries there all belong in another category --William Allen Simpson 02:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because "Jewish schools" is toooo broad a name implying any kind of "Jewish school" -- including UNIVERSITIES, such as Yeshiva University, because in North America universities and colleges ("law school," medical school," "dental school") denotes a "school" -- whereas "Jewish day schools" denotes ONLY a specific category of Jewish elementary and high schools in North America to which this category is devoted. It is NOT an archaic name and it is widely used. This is an ill-considered nomination. IZAK 00:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jewish day schools are only one kind of Jewish school, and the term is widely used today; "Jewish day school" gets over 260,000 Google hits. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional token characters to Category:Token characters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename --Cclarke, 22 June 2006
  • This seems too specific and POV (even given the sole character's name). I'd say delete.--Mike Selinker 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mike. --Musicpvm 05:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By definition, a token character is not notable. The sole current member, Token Black, isn't actually a token character, anyway, he's a parody of token characters. --M@rēino 21:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mareino. -- Supermorff 12:19, 29 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:Amarilloans to Category:People from Amarillo[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. Conscious 18:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of "people from American city" categories. User:Arual 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename per nom. I am the creator of this category, and if People from Amarillo is more consistent with established standards, then great. Cheers, Lbbzman 21:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename --William Allen Simpson 02:46, 24 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.

Armored fighting vehicles by nationality[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 18:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armored fighting vehicles are currently categorized as Nationality x. This is ambiguous to interpert, and is also inconsistent with several other primary sub-cats of Category:Vehicles, which otherwise use a by-country naming convention. For example, Category:Aircraft by country uses "manufactured by Foo" (Ex Category:Aircraft manufactured by Canada), and Category:Ships by country uses "of Foo" (Ex Category:Ships of Australia). By nationality categories for entities that are not socio-cultural products of people are ambiguous, and renaming the following to a by country naming convention would correct an inconsistency.

--Kurieeto 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC). Added "manufactured in" option June 25 Kurieeto 14:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - As with the Aircraft by Country discussion, this change would alter the meaning of the category from "Vehicles designed and manufactured in Foo" to "Vehicles used by Foo", which is a completely different category. JW 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Nationality x wording is ambiguous and does not clearly infer that the scope of the category is for "Vehicles designed and manufactured in Foo". A "Canadian" armoured fighting vehicle could be interperted as one in use by the Military of Canada, irrespective of where it was manufactured and designed. Would a "manufactured in Foo" or "designed and manufactured in Foo" wording be acceptable? Kurieeto 21:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United Kingdom political history to Category:Political history of the United Kingdom[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 18:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In line with other countries' categories (see Category:Political history), and a more appropriate use of 'United Kingdom' (i.e. as a noun, not an adjective). Bastin 18:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two problems with British political history. First, it doesn't match the style already adopted for all other countries ('Political history of Foo'), which is the reason that I nominated this as it is. Second, it isn't clear what it means; 'British' is the adjective for the United Kingdom, Great Britain, the British Isles, the British Empire, etc. If the idea is to include all predecessor states, it ought to be 'Political history of the British Isles', with appropriate subcategories (e.g. 'Political history of the United Kingdom' and the extant '...of England' and '...of Scotland'). Bastin 17:13, 25 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:AAAAAA![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:Wikipedians on Uncyclopedia. Conscious 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unencyclopedic. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 18:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created it, and it's supposed to be a category for users with the template {{User AAAA}} on their page. I can change it, or you can delete it if you really want to. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE inappropriate name for a user category. Per policy, user categories require "Wikipedian" or "Wikiproject" as part of their names. Of course, this is an uncyclopedia categorization scheme, and WP is not a social club. 132.205.45.148 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Sorry for the trouble. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Delete per anonymous IP address above, Nesher 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category talk:User Wikipedia/Anti-Administrator to Category:Wikipedians who don't wish to become administrators[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. Conscious 18:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename it will sound better Anonymous__Anonymous 18:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The accompanying userbox makes it clear that this Cat is for the latter, not the former.--M@rēino 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - not the same thing. --Mais oui! 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I'm one, but I would also belong in category:Wikipedians who disapprove of user categories. CalJW 07:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename "Keep" this is the only name which does not sound Dubious OR PRETENTIOUS.Nomination is in bad faith perhaps counter action against my proposed delition of CVU---a highly dubious organisation I SUSPECT engaged in Vandalism promotion pretending to be countering it.Those who don't like the name should better float another organisation.Holywarrior 07:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: as per Mareino. --Ragib 22:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename' - will more accurately describe what its about.--MarkS (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Should express that a user does not wish to become an administrator, for whatever reason. Not that they oppose or somehow have a disapproval/dislike for administrators. Note that this is a category tied to a userbox of the same wording as the proposed rename. Kevin_b_er 08:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional cold characters to Category:Fictional cryokineticists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is incorrectly named because it does not explain what the characters in it can do. It just says "they're cold" when it is supposed to mean "they control ice" which is what the new name would say. CKalhoon 18:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Works for me.--Mike Selinker 18:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This category could be useful for characters such as The Little Match Girl. I would add her to the cat now, but I don't want the robots to move her to "cryokineticists" if/when the rename is approved. --M@rēino 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A brief look at the category reveals that they are all cryokineticists. User:Dimadick
  • Support This would bring the category in line with similar category for hydrokinetics and pyrokinetics. --Ariamaki The Wiki-Wise 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Zythe 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. CalJW 07:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -Lady Aleena @ 07:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "Cold characters" does not mean "characters that can control ice" any more than "hot characters" means "characters that can control fire". JIP | Talk 09:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Orphaned unfree 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 (check remaining images) --William Allen Simpson 05:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this category is now obsolete with the toolserver down and has been replaced by Category:Orphaned fairuse images which sorts the images by date. --BrownCow &#149; (how now?) 17:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Users_who_think_userboxes_must_die[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:40, 30 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:USPS stamps to Category:Post-1978 USPS stamps[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:Fair use images of United States postage. Conscious 18:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is not supposed to include all stamps by the United States Postal Service, but rather just the ones produced after 1978 (and therefore not released into the public domain). joturner 16:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - shouldn't the abbreviation be written out in full? Grutness...wha? 03:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why clutter a category list when the expansion is but one click away...?  This may be of interest. Regards, David Kernow 10:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Republic of Ireland organisations to Category:Organisations based in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for renaming to follow the naming convention of all sub-cats of Category:Organizations by country, such as Category:Organisations based in Australia. Kurieeto 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charities by country[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-cats of Category:Organizations by country are named "based in Foo", such as Category:Organizations based in Canada. I believe this naming convention should be extended to Category:Charities by country, a direct sub-cat of Category:Organizations. Currently the contents of Cat:Charities by country use the Nationality x wording, which is inconsistent, and also prone to ambiguous interpretations. Switching to a by country wording, such as the one used for Category:Organizations by country, would address these issues. The following categories are proposed for renaming:

--Kurieeto 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Mais oui! 21:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Racehorses bred in the United States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 18:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American racehorses. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure as there might be a distinction between the two descriptions. Anyone into horseracing here?  David Kernow 01:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- where the horse was "bred" isn't notable, that just means the horse had sex. Heck, where the horse was born isn't notable either. Where the horse was trained and raced is notable, only when the horse itself is notable. --William Allen Simpson 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge CalJW 07:20, 24 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:SFWA Writer Beware Worst Literary Agents[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, nothing to listify. Conscious 18:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify -- violates too many policies, trying to do too many things, acronym needs expanding, only 1 article (although there could be more in the future), the actual well-known public list is only called "Writer Beware". A list or list in a complete article would be much better, with annotations and citations. Just doesn't meet the standards for categories. William Allen Simpson 15:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, do NOT listify. The category currently quotes the following text: "None of these agencies has a significant track record of sales to commercial (advance-paying) publishers, and most have virtually no documented and verified sales at all." Therefore, the agencies (in addition to being scam artists) are also non-notable. --M@rēino 15:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sadly, though these agencies are not notable for their sales, many are notable as scam artists. For comparison: even though Charles Ponzi was not a legitimate or successful fanancier, he is nevertheless notable for the fame and magnitude of his operation's illegitimacy and failure. --Victor Lighthill 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that compilers hold the copyright to their lists, so we can't really listify it. Anybody know if this applie to wikipedia's categories as well as just lists? SeventyThree(Talk) 08:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    No, compilations and lists of facts are not copyrightable, thank goodness, and we now have multiple companies publishing telephone books. Our lists and categories are compilations of our article references. In fact, I'd say a list is better, as it can be annotated and give proper attribution to sources, --William Allen Simpson 02:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, perhaps I am remembering wrong. IANAL and all that. SeventyThree(Talk) 03:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete and listify sounds reasonable to me per W A Simpson. Of the 20, only one seems notable at the moment per the Ponzi analogy, although that could conceivably change. At least one agent whose agency would have made this list in the past under current criteria has since been prosecuted for fraud. One agency on the current list is currently under investigation by a sheriff's office in Texas [1]. BTW, Writer Beware is essentially a division of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, not the name of the list per se. Karen 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC). Updated with citation Karen 06:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. I originally created the category because I planned on creating articles for all 20 of the agencies described in the list, but the articles I created were speedy-deleted as attack articles and the consensus at deletion review was that while they weren't attack articles, the subjects weren't notable enough for articles either. JulesH 08:06, 29 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:Indian administrators(govt) to Category:Indian civil servants[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as standard for Category:Civil servants by nationality. --Mereda 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Vilnius mayors to Category:Mayors of Vilnius[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 Mayors of Vilnius. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed new category title is more natural, and follows the "of Foo" wording that all other contents of Category:Mayors by city use, such as Category:Mayors of Vienna. A rename to Category:Mayors of Vilnius, Lithuania would also be acceptable. Kurieeto 15:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Carter family[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, but split Category:Jimmy Carter. Proper tags were lost by the out-of-process deletions, but hopefully the history can be restored. --William Allen Simpson 07:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A wanted category that should have stayed red; a strange mix of the families of Jimmy Carter and June Carter Cash. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Staal family to Category:National Hockey League families[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 20:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - There are only four Staal brothers and the oldest was born in 1984; category is not likely to grow for many years. Other NHL families such as the Stastnys are already in the NHL families category. BoojiBoy 13:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Per nom. Over-categorization. Kurieeto 13:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All the articles should be subcategorised. The contents of Category:National Hockey League families don't match the title because the articles are about individuals, whereas they should either be articles about families or subcategories for families. Osomec 14:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. DMighton 07:53, 25 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:June 2006 singles[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 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:2006 singles. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Singles should not be categorized by month; years are enough. --Musicpvm 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. CalJW 07:28, 24 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:Railway stations in Ayrshire[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 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation by geography in Scotland is normally in terms of current unitary authority areas rather than historic counties. Splitting the category into East, North and South Ayrshire would be consistent with other subcategories of Category:Railway stations in Scotland and would allow these new categories to become subcats of Category:Transport in East Ayrshire etc. Jellyman 12:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if subdivided, but not otherwise. I suggest that if Jellyman wants this to done, he would be best advised to get on with it himself, as I doubt that anyone else will do it. Osomec 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 14 for futher consideration --William Allen Simpson 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chicheley 14:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per nom. I admit my geography of Scotland is poor, but would this be a useful parent category to the East/North/South cats? Thryduulf 21:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Category:Ayrshire does not exist and should not exist as creating catgories for the tradition counties would create total confusion in the Scottish menu. CalJW 07:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The split has already been done. Athenaeum 13:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. CalJW 07:27, 24 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.

Mighty Ducks[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, many opinions not stated clearly. Conscious 06:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there grounds to speedy this? I can't imagine there would be opposition. ccwaters 12:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and speedy if possible. BoojiBoy 13:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please provide a link to the NHL news release. That is both necessary and sufficient to prove the case for renaming. --M@rēino 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Its to happen at 10am PDT. There's a countdown to name change here: [3] Less than an hour at the time of my comment. ccwaters 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see there going to be a debate about it and thats fine. However: if that's the case, can you place back all the current player articles into the "MDofA players" cat. If it is decided to have 2 seperate sets of cats, those articles still belong in the old cat. Then further adding them to the new cat is would be speculatory since no one as played for the "new team" yet. Anything could happen: free angency, retirement, trades, assignment to the AHL Portland Pirates. They shouldn't be added until them suit up for a game in the new uniform. ccwaters 17:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The franchise has not changed. They have not moved, nor are they nuking the history. How's our California Seals/Golden Seals/Oakland Seals coverage doing? That's right, List of Oakland Seals players has a heading of "This is a list of players who have played at least one game for the Oakland Seals, California Golden Seals, California Seals, and Cleveland Barons of the National Hockey League (NHL). This list does not include players for the Minnesota North Stars and the Dallas Stars of the NHL." And that's even with a franchise move! That said, there are still disparate categories for Golden Seals/Seals/Oakland/Cleveland players. So we have a few decisions to make...because if we do it that way then List of New Jersey Devils players needs to include List of Colorado Rockies players (hockey) in it.  RasputinAXP  c 19:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely believe people should not be listed as playing for teams they didn't play for, so I oppose renaming the player and coach categories (please move them back). However, I have no problem with folding the umbrella category under the new name.--Mike Selinker 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support Minor enough to warrant name change. Borisblue 03:33, 24 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:Tzedakah[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 20:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tzedakah means "righteousness" in Hebrew and is a word that is commonly used to denote "charity" in Jewish communities. This category seems to have been set up to promote the agenda of the one organization in it so far, i.e. Kolel Chibas Yerushalayim -- going against Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. A further problem is that the word Tzedakah has different meanings depending on its context: It could refer to the concept of "righteousness" repeated in the Hebrew Bible, or it could be part of Hebrew language studies, thus it is ambiguous. The name "Tzedakah" for a category is just too vague and unclear as it stands and should be deleted. In any case it would have been better to have named it Category:Jewish philanthropy. IZAK 10:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ("Organisation" and "organization" are equally valid spellings, so far as I'm aware; the latter might be American English and the former non-American English, but I haven't checked. Regards, David Kernow 01:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Nesher: As a point of order: You created [4] the new Category:Jewish charities, after this vote commenced, which only serves to mislead the vote here. What's the point of burning the candle at both ends? IZAK 00:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/rename per Nesher.--M@rēino 20:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • no vote - 'charity' is definitely not a great alternative either, especially with the way it is described in that article, rather it just seems to be the common English term. Philanthropy is much better, though now that I've read the other articles, maybe tzedakah would be a legit cat if it were dealt with properly. Nom describes 'tzedakah' as vague but that claim is certainly is not 'justice' to the essence of the institution of tzedakah itlsef.--Shuki 07:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Dozens of categories by Imthehappywanderer (talk · contribs)[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 deleted by various administrators --William Allen Simpson

I hate to break this one but are you guys aware of this new user? He's been busy creating a *lot* of categories floating around in mid air. They are not used by more than 1-2 articles each (many are empty), most refer to themselves and quite a lot are redundent. A few examples are:

WP:SFD has also found a lot of material relating to stubs. I'd recommend a speedy deletion of most of these contributions. Valentinian (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. Thryduulf 11:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; It looks like he's been building wanted categories, however, he's not categorizing them correctly. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that might explain the odd collection but quite a lot of items on this list should never have been included in the first place. Much material on it is nothing but errors. Valentinian (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, without prejudice to fixing them up or recreating where appropriate. I have no idea if this is weird spam, strange vandalism, or misguidedly trying to help, but they're more sensibly left as redlinks than as links to broken categories, so's they're more likely to be created correctly, if really needed, and tagging them individually for deletion would be pointless and painful. Alai 17:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cities and towns in FATA to Category:Cities and towns in Federally Administered Tribal Areas[edit]

and

Category:FATA to Category:Federally Administered Tribal Areas[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. Conscious 20:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename [both] per expanding abbreviations. Also who of you knew for what "FATA" stands before? Darwinek 09:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't, but would feel no inconvenience clicking once (or twice if not using a tabbed browser) to find out from the category page. Regards, David Kernow 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC), amended 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and Keep Category:FATA per here. (Aside: neither "FATA" nor "Federally Administered Tribal Areas" indentify the federation involved.)  David Kernow 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC), amended 16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be renamed instead. Same was done before with Category:Cities and towns in NWFP to Category:Cities and towns in North-West Frontier Province etc. Expand abbreviations. What will be next "GK playing for NYR" ? - Darwinek 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "NYR goalkeepers"?  Expand all abbreviations, regardless of the length their expansion adds to a category name – sometimes more than doubling it...?  I agree, however, that "Cities and towns in NWFP", "Cities and towns in FATA" etc would be better expanded if "NWFP cities and towns", "FATA cities and towns" etc weren't possible. The distinction appears to be between abbreviations being used as adjectivals and being used in place of nouns; have noted this here. Regards, David 11:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Federally Administered Tribal Areas. --Spasage 13:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both to expanded versions per nom. CalJW 07:31, 24 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:World Cities[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 (see also June 21) --William Allen Simpson 05:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague. Completely subjective, POV. What defines a world city? 'All cities are word cities and therefore should be categorized there, but then that would be duplication of Category:Cities' — Nathan (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. --GeorgeMoney T·C 05:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is already nominated below (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:World Cities to Category:World cities). --Musicpvm 05:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was nominated for renaming. I removed that and proposed deletion instead and forgot to edit the other listing. — Nathan (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was used on many minor cities not listed on the list of World Cities. The term is too vague and subjective. Valentinian (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there is also Category:Metropolis, which is similarly subjective - any thoughts before I nominate that for CFD also? — sjorford++ 12:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete Category:Metropolis as well. Osomec 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Like so many other things, this could be subjective if you think too hard about it, but as the Wikipedia article clearly states, Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network maintains the list, so it's 100% verifiable and factual whether a city is in the official list or not. --M@rēino 15:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as below.--Mike Selinker 18:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no benefit to a category, as the article Global city lists such cities with explanatory text.-gadfium 19:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The opinion of the Globalization and World Cities Study Group is a mere opinion, and doesn't justify the absolute statement and endorsement that a category gives. Athenaeum 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:African American intellectuals to Category:African Americans[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 20:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Intellectual" is too vague to be a useful means of categorisation, which is probably why Category:Intellectuals does not exist. Any intellectual can be placed in a more specific category related to his or her specific accomplishments. Chicheley 04:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Do not merge African-American intellectuals with African-Americans. Why? As I've added to the entry itself: "Since 1980, the category of public intellectual has been much discussed, and many of those identified as public intellectuals have been African-American: Henry Louis Gates Jr., Bell Hooks, Norman Kelley, Robin D.G. Kelley, Manning Marable, Adolph Reed, Michele Wallace, and Cornel West. These thinkers and writers comment on established discipines such as history, literature, and political science, but they also cross discliplines, commenting on identity and various forms culture (including popular culture such as film and hip-hop music) and contemporary politics. They examine public discourse regarding American identity, its relation to world culture, and articulated ideals about what we seem to be in the process of becoming. Their work is sometimes criticized for being too light, even as they bring the heaviness of history and theory to bear on intimate relationships and cultural forms they usually do not get such thorough interrogation. They can seem, at once, both cosmopolitan and provincial; and, of course, it is arguable that their various contradictions are part of a genuine complexity, part of their uniqueness." The category of African-American intellectuals has become a discussed subject in its own right. Site visitor, June 24, 2006.

  • Merge as above. Chicheley 04:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as too vague. Personally, I couldn't easily see sub-categories like "writers" and so I've now cleaned the pipesorting of the subcats. The unresolved big problem is that there are far too many articles in the main Category:African Americans and we should be making it much clearer for people to navigate.--Mereda 10:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I'm reluctant to see much subcategorisation of ethnic categories as some people will belong in several occupatoinal categories, leading either to category clutter or to people being taken out of the main occupation by nationality categories, which is a very bad thing. Osomec 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. David Kernow 15:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but as Mereda said, we should to pare down the main cat and start listing everyone by profession, role, etc., instead of just by the main race cat. --M@rēino 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For info, about that point of paring down the main cat, I've put a suggestion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#User-friendly_categories.--Mereda 20:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Monpelier, Vermont[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 delete. ×Meegs 20:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Typo lead to misspelled category name, the correct category, Category:Montpelier, Vermont, has been created.Cbvt 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete now that correct spelling has been created (would have satisfied speedy renaming criteria 1). – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 02:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete as above. Thryduulf 12:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Buttonquails[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 relist for more opinions. Conscious 20:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Category:Turnicidae. Whatever became of the idea of using common names? -- ProveIt (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reverse merge, the fact that Category:Turnicidae starts "Buttonquails are..." and doesn't mention the word "Tunicidae" once suggests that "Buttonquail" is the common name. Thryduulf 12:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_22&oldid=1144700048"