Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 15
February 15
[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 --Kbdank71 16:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot be a native speaker of XHTML... Delete --Wulf 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you BJAODN a template? - N (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take this to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. If the template is deleted, the category will go with it. - EurekaLott 03:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonsense. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:43, 21 February 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.
British visual art
[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/rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following three categories are the only members of Category:Art by nationality that include the word "visual". It is implied and does not need to be stated.
Rename all without "visual". Merchbow 23:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It turns out the Category:Scottish art and Category:English art already exist, so the two matching visual art categories simply need to be merged. Merchbow 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. How is music visual? --Vizcarra 17:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant. Music shouldn't be in this category. Merchbow 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it irrelevant if they are attempting to merge visual arts with non-visual arts. Music is an art. --Vizcarra 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant. Music shouldn't be in this category. Merchbow 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge into appropriate categories. Painting and sculpture are kinds of art, all of which are visual. Music is one of the arts. See Category:Art and Category:The arts. Postdlf 20:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Therefore, you are not "supporting" the nominator who claims that "visual" is implied in art. --Vizcarra 07:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I rather think he is. You don't seem to understand the difference between art and "the arts". Merchbow 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And you are not helping me understand the issue. Care to explain further? --Vizcarra 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I rather think he is. You don't seem to understand the difference between art and "the arts". Merchbow 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think it qualifies as a speedy "non-compliance with by country naming conventions." Carina22 22:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename ReeseM 14:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename Honbicot 18:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename per below. — Feb. 23, '06 [06:14] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Category:U.S. Constitution unratified amendments to Category:United States Constitution unratified amendments
[edit]Vegaswikian 08:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy after objection to proposed name. Vegaswikian 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Unratified amendments to the United States Constitution to match the other subcategories of Category:Amendments to the United States Constitution. - EurekaLott 09:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per EurekaLott. jareha 01:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per EurekaLott. - choster 06:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per EurekaLott. --Vizcarra 17:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support renamingper Eurekalott TheGrappler 22:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per EurekaLott.Honbicot 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Films based on Kurt Vonnegut's works --Kbdank71 16:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More accurate, as I don't believe Mr. Vonnegut himself has been adapted :P . Her Pegship 21:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Some of the films were based on plays or short stories, not books. Perhaps Category:Films based on Kurt Vonnegut works would be more appropriate. - EurekaLott 22:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Short stories of an author are usually published together in a book, so the films would be based on a book, even if it is only part of it. Lady Aleena 07:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Short stories frequently appear in periodicals, in collections with other authors' works etc., so I support Category:Films based on Kurt Vonnegut works. Her Pegship 14:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the counter-proposal to move to Category:Films based on Kurt Vonnegut works for the reasons given by EurekaLott and Pegship, and per my comment on the Stephen King discussion below. - N (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See my comment below per over-precision. Her Pegship 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Created Category:Films based on Kurt Vonnegut's works per discussion; how do I/we/you archive this discussion? thanks - Her Pegship 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CFD discussions generally remain active for one week. Please refrain from creating new categories and moving articles while the discussion is still open. When the discussion is completed, an admin will mark this section as closed, and if there is consensus, move the articles to the new category. In addition, I do not see anybody advocating the name Category:Films based on Kurt Vonnegut's works, so I'm confused as to why you chose to create this category. - EurekaLott 01:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops - I guess I jumped the gun. I'm still learning about procedure. As to your creation inquiry, here's an additional comment that did not appear here but on the project's talk page at WikiProject Films/Films based on books:
- RE: Naming writer categories - (here goes) I have checked three grammatical reference books, and none of them mention any instances where it is appropriate to drop the 's from a possesive noun. As we are building a category based on written work, we should at least follow proper grammatical usage. I know it is a pain, but we should try to be grammatically correct. - Lady Aleena
- This also applies to the Stephen King request below. Please educate me. :) Her Pegship 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apostrophes are not typically used in this sort of category name. See Category:Novels by author and Category:Albums by artist for lots of examples. - EurekaLott 12:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised proposal: I renew my request to use Category: Films based on (author name) works, no apostrophe, in keeping with the naming conventions and with overall consistency.Her Pegship 15:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Films based on Stephen King's works --Kbdank71 16:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More accurate; "yournamehere film" is a term used for film directors.Her Pegship 21:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Many of the films were based on short stories, not books. Perhaps Category:Films based on Stephen King works would be more appropriate. - EurekaLott 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the above comment. There are quite a few films based on his short stories and this category should include those. I do think the current name is a bit ambiguous though, and I would support the renaming of this category to Films based on Stephen King works. - N (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Short stories of an author are usually published together in a book, so the films would be based on a book, even if it is only part of it. Lady Aleena 07:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Films based on Stephen King works. A short story is not a book, just as a chapter of a novel is not a book. Bhoeble 13:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Short stories frequently appear in periodicals, in collections with other authors' works etc., so I support Category:Films based on Stephen King works. Her Pegship 14:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nominator, per Lady Aleena. --Vizcarra 17:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the two subjects above: If you wish to use the word "works", the word "written" should preface it. Also, make sure that the possessive form is used.
Category:Films based on Stephen King's written non-musical works?
Category:Films based on Kurt Vonnegut's written non-musical works?
Should the plural "works" be used or just the singular "work"?
It has to be very clear that the films are based only on the written works of these artists. Who knows what else they have done. The guy who painted the Mona Lisa would not be included in this group of artists, but any films based on the Mona Lisa would be considered a film based on that artist's work. (Having a brain freeze on the artist's name.) The other problem is that even written works is too vague. We want to exclude any possibility that if the artist in question writes a song, that the film based on that song is not included in this group either. How do we differentiate between all of the various works and make sure that only books and short stories are the only films going in those categories? Who knows what will be unearthed in the future by dead artists. "Books" seemed such a great compromise.
Lady Aleena (New sig is buggy)
- If we were talking about Leonardo da Vinci, this distinction might make sense, as his works cover many areas of media. But Stephen King and Kurt Vonnegut are commonly known only for their written works (although apparently King plays a mean rock & roll guitar in his off time). "Works" is a term understood almost universally to mean a writer's or artist's output, and it's most commonly used with the creator's name as an adjective - in such phrases as "Stephen King works" or "Beethoven works". Practically speaking, it's unnecessarily precise to use Category:Films based on Stephen King's written non-musical works; what about Category:Films based on Stephen King's written non-visual works or Category:Films based on Stephen King's written non-dance works? This way lies madness. Category:Films based on Stephen King works is narrow enough, and as a phrase, commonly used. We're not going for grammatical perfection, we're looking for ways for people to access articles that interest them. For the sake of compromise I would be willing to use Category:Films based on the works of Stephen King, although it's not as brief and sounds a bit stuffy. And in the big picture of life, if Category:Films based on Stephen King's written non-musical works becomes necessary, it can be created as a sub-cat of Category:Films based on Stephen King works. We'll cross that bridge when we comes to it. Cheers, Her Pegship 16:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will no longer oppose the use of the word "works" as long as "written" prefaces it and that the possesive form is used.
- I will no longer oppose the use of the word "works" as long as "written" prefaces it and that the possesive form is used.
Films based on Stephen King's written works
Films based on Kurt Vonnegut's written works - Lady Aleena (can't figure out how to get the bug out of my sig)
- Created Category:Films based on Stephen King's works per discussion; how do I/we/you archive this discussion? thanks - Her Pegship 01:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised. See discussion of Category:Films based on Kurt Vonnegut works, above. Her Pegship 01:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 23, '06 [06:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Empty category for 12 days. No main article, and no description of category's purpose. Lbbzman 20:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd imagine that it is intended for works in which characters from one work appear together with characters from another, as in the cast of Law & Order guest-starring on ER or Captain Kirk meeting the X-Men. I'm not sure how useful a category for that might be, however. Postdlf 20:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Honbicot 18:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's empty. FloNight talk 02:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I started this category, but then found out that what I had in mind, already existed in Category: Fictional crossovers and I moved the articles there. So please go on and delete. Pictureuploader 08:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted on Feb 16. (Speedied for being a WP:POINT violation.) - TexasAndroid 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
proposed as a silly example that some editor apparently took up the challenge and added Aaron Burr to the list.Can this be speedied? Carlossuarez46 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It was my silly example, that was added by someone else (who is going to get an earfull from me!) I wish this could be speedied but I don't see a criteria for "categories that are blatantly ridiculous". -- Samuel Wantman 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensous -- TexasAndroid 22:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of categorization is appropriate for the Olympic Games, yes, but for a much smaller event like the South East Asian Games this is unnecessary clutter. It could create a bad precedent for other regional sport events. Punkmorten 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course delete the subcategories as well. Punkmorten 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now tagged:
- Category:Athletes at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games
- Category:Bodybuilders at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games
- Category:Table tennis players at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games
- Category:Bowling players at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games
- Category:Badminton players at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games
- Oppose wikipedia is already criticised for its systematic bias in favoring only predominately US/European content. This category help correct that. I would be OK with merging all the sub categories into this one. --Salix alba (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Following your logic, an athlete like Aliuska López could end up with Category:1987 Central American and Caribbean Championships, Category:1987 Pan American Games, Category:1990 Central American and Caribbean Games, Category:1991 Pan American Games, Category:1993 Central American and Caribbean Games, Category:1995 Pan American Games, Category:1997 Central American and Caribbean Championships, Category:1999 Pan American Games and perhaps more including the 9 categories she already has. Is this preferable? Punkmorten 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Why are we deleting a categoryy of participants of international events and at the same time have Category:American Idol contestants? --Vizcarra 17:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that this is not a deletion nomination for articles within the category. Punkmorten 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Competing in American idol is a defining characteristic of an American Idol contenstant. Competing in a particular event is not a defining characteristic of a sportsperson. Osomec 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - the games aren't annual; they are a major event that the competitors build up to. As per Salix alba, I would support merging its subcategories. TheGrappler 22:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even the Olympics should only have one category rather than separate ones for each games (I don't know whether that's the case of not). Carina22 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The "US/European content" is a red herring because there aren't such categories for US/European events, or very few of them, and any which exist or are created should be deleted. Applying this system widely would obscure the important categories. Osomec 23:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Excessive categorisation. ReeseM 14:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete way over the top. Not only will articles end up on lots of categories, but they have long names too. Lists of categories on articles could get:
Toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolong. Golfcam 22:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Why set up incipient category clutter over about 10 articles? Honbicot 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep -- TexasAndroid 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is a very small country. It is extremely rare that an Israeli film actor does not also act on TV. Most also act in theater. All this creates too much redundancy, currently with the category one level above the film actors. For now, and perhaps also in the future, Category:Israeli actors does the job well. gidonb 18:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper above gidonb 00:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep, Israeli films often compete internationally, and Israeli actors [1] often move between the diaspora and Israel to act. Natalie Portman, for example . Abe Froman 21:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these actors, such as Topol or Mike Burstyn, are equally engaged in 101 other media (TV, theater, shows, musicals, you name it). Even Natalie Portman, whose entire career is in the US, has had some theater roles. She is already categorized as a an "American film actor" and as a "film actor", and has never acted in an Israeli film. gidonb 00:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Currently included in the category are: Yael Abecassis (primarily TV), Gila Almagor (primarily theater), Oded Fehr (primarily TV), Alona Tal (primarily movies). These actors are as much film actors (or less) as the others in the category above, Category:Israeli actors. gidonb 00:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if only for the reason that if it is deleted, someone will see that this category is missing for Israel and will recreate and repopulate it. Why bother trying to get rid of it? -- Samuel Wantman 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Keep for the sake of consistent pattern of categorization of Actors articles for all countries. I believe it is useful that a person may browse from Category:Film actors toCategory:Film actors by nationality and then to the film actors of various countries, Israeli film actors, for example. --Lini 02:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to both: in this case I will move all Israeli actors into Category:Israeli film actors, Category:Israeli television actors, Category:Israeli voice actors, Category:Israeli musical theatre actors, Category:Israeli stage actors. It is rare that an actor is not into 3 of these categories at the same time. I dislike the inconsistency. Currently the film actors are not different from the other actors. We have to deal with this one way or another. gidonb 02:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to retreat my request, I am going to further categorize the other actors. This request can be archived. In the meantime I have recategorized all the actors under subs, many of them new, so the problem is solved. No need to keep voting ;-) gidonb 01:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Lini Bhoeble 13:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Lini --Vizcarra 17:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - TexasAndroid 16:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Misspelled author name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lady Aleena (talk • contribs) .
- Speedy delete, delist. Pavel Vozenilek 19:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge to the latter. — Feb. 23, '06 [06:01] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Standardization of the category naming. All articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be about "notable" things, so putting notable in the category title is useless. bogdan 13:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. - EurekaLott 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. - N (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge TheGrappler 22:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Golfcam 21:53, 18 February 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:Presently operating light rail or streetcars in the United States to Category:Presently operating or future light rail or streetcar systems 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would make more sense to include the small number of planned systems along with the current ones. The addition of "systems" is because the category is for lines and systems, not individual streetcars. Sertraline 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, just make a separate future category. 132.205.45.148 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like needless specificity, given the small number of future systems with their own articles. --Sertraline 21:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment presently is ambiguous in that it means "in the near future" rather than currently (which of course may not be true if the system goes down), what about active? Carlossuarez46 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Light rail in the United States This covers past, current and future systems, and my understanding is that all streetcars are light rail. -- Samuel Wantman 00:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, it depends who you ask. There's a general sense that light rail is built to higher standards than streetcar lines (private ROW on at least part of the line) and uses different vehicles. We have two different articles for them.
- The problem with grouping former and current systems is that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of former systems, but a much smaller number of current systems. An alternate way might be to make a category for systems that have existed after the 1960s (as that's when the last interurbans that don't still exist were eliminated). Category:Light rail and streetcar systems in the United States operating after 1970? --Sertraline 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are almost indetical in topic and content. --Salix alba (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per nom. Bhoeble 13:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose these are not two separate and redundant categories. Category:Grains is a child category of Category:Cereals --Vizcarra 17:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. OTOH, buckwheat is a noncereal grain (so in that sense, cereals should be a child of grains, not the other way around), though as the article says it "is often counted as a cereal". Gene Nygaard 00:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge' So why have a child category which almost exactly mirrors its parent? (nominator) --Salix alba (talk) 22:47, 16 February 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.
Subcategories of Earls in the Peerage of England
[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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance it looks like a good idea to subcategorise category:Earls in the Peerage of England due to its size, but I don't think that it is. One of the subcategories was created by an American and the other by a Russian, and they may not have understood how these titles were used. The placenames mentioned in the title are of little significance. They were allocated more or less at random and the family in question often had little to do with the place. The Earls of Huntingdon didn't rule Huntingdon and most likely quite a few of them never even visited the town. Also the same earldom was often created more than once for different families. The members of Category:Earls of Huntingdon are a pretty random bunch as the title Earl of Huntingdon was created seven times. They range from an Anglo-Saxon worthy to several Kings of Scotland to relations of English kings to minor English landowners. The degree of connection implied by putting them in the same category just isn't there.
If we were to subcategorise all the peers it would make more sense to do it by family - but there are probably too many complications involved to make that worthwhile. For a start it would have to be done by surname, but the surnames are usually less well known than the titles and they tended to change between generations due to compound names. Carina22 08:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both into Category:Earls in the Peerage of England. Carina22 08:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Both per nom. -Danaman5 21:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both per nom. Such categories cut across the primary division of peerage articles between the peerages of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom in an inappropriate way as some titles were created in different peerages at different times. Bhoeble 13:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge TheGrappler 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only had one entry in almost a year. Moved that to the well used Category:United States history timelines. Vegaswikian 07:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Carina22 08:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support delete TheGrappler 22:37, 17 February 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.
Tennessee-Chattanooga football
[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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For sports purposes, this school sometimes uses the abbreviation "UTC", but fairly consistently calls itself just "Chattanooga"—never "Tennessee-Chattanooga". See the school's official athletics site, gomocs.com. — Dale Arnett 06:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tennessee-Chattanooga Mocs football players to Category:Chattanooga Mocs football players
[edit]See above. — Dale Arnett 06:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support both. Sounds okay to me.--Mike Selinker 12:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support both. Google counts vastly favor "Chattanooga Mocs" over "UTC Mocs" too. ×Meegs 01:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensous -- TexasAndroid 22:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category needs a better name, but I can't think of an appropriate one. CG janitor 05:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English Brazilians perhaps? The only person there so far is an English-born Brazilian. If he had acquired American citizenship instead he'd be included in Category:English Americans. --Vizcarra 07:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I think it's the other way around. Brazilians living in England. CG janitor 12:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Afterthought that's it!! Category:Brazilians living in England!!! CG janitor 12:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone should add Jean Charles de Menezes to that new category. :-) bogdan 13:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Afterthought that's it!! Category:Brazilians living in England!!! CG janitor 12:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's the other way around. Brazilians living in England. CG janitor 12:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think it should be Brazilian-English people, just like Category:Jewish-English people. This is to include English people of Brazilian origin (unlike Meneses). --Vizcarra 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is the first time that cfd has made me laugh. Quite a feat. The only problem is that although he was born in England, the only person currently in the cat is actually Brazilian-Irish!--Mais oui! 13:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is fine. But he was born in England (West Bromwich) to a Brazilian father. --Vizcarra 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Brazilian-Alban, Brazilian-English, Brazilian-Anglobriton, Brazilian-Angles, Brazilian-Anglians 132.205.45.148 17:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Brazilian-English looks more like a language category. --Vizcarra 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: are such classifications really used in Brazil or in Britain? Wikipedia shoudn't invent new categories. Pavel Vozenilek 19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Spurious category bordering on nonsense. There is no numerically significant community of people of Brazilian descent in England. There is - unsurprisingly - no matching WP article on such a group, which should be a minimum standard before anyone creates an "ethnicity" category. Valiantis 19:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per above. Failing that, rename to something comprehensible. JW 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --Latinus 12:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete- mispelling of Colombia, correct cat already exists. pschemp | talk 03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. - EurekaLott 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. - N (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- TexasAndroid 16:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Typo for Category:Buildings and structures in Belarus Fagstein 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominate it for speedy ({{db}}). Pavel Vozenilek 19:22, 15 February 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.