Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 8 October 10 >

October 9[edit]

Category:General Presidents of the Young Men and Young Women[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 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 debate was rename all. Kbdank71 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:General Presidents of the Young Men to Category:General presidents of the Young Men organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Category:General Presidents of the Young Women to Category:General presidents of the Young Women organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Nominator's rationale: Expand name of organizations per parent categories precedent in CFD 2007 Sep 30. Fix capitalization of titles per similar category precedents in CFD 2007 Sep 30 and CFD 2007 Sep 30. Snocrates 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The category name are rather verbose, but shorter ones would be ambiguous to the reader. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Irish-Americans[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 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 debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Fictional_Irish-Americans
Nominator's rationale:, Delete - overcategorization. Material is interlinked and appropriately categorized; eponymous category is unwarranted.IrishLass0128 19:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in the absence of a wider discussion of the entire Category:Fictional European Americans structure. Otto4711 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - because the category is subjective, there is no hard-and-fast rule about how much Irish ancestry constitutes being an Irish-American, and the category isn't serving a useful purpose as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong). A discussion of the entire fictional European Americans structure would be good, though. -- Noneofyourbusiness 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as well as above agreement to delete. Category is subjective and is overcategorized and matches other categories that have been deleted such as those included in WP:OC.CelticGreen 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Otto. On this side of the Atlantic, it is well known that you are Irish if your dog is called Paddy. Johnbod 02:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And which "side of the Atlantic" do you claim to hail from. And it is my understanding you can't "keep" per a person's reply, you have to offer your own opinion.CelticGreen 02:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if your opinion is the same as another user's you can cite their rationale. It's the same you saying "Delete per nom." MrBlondNYC 04:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the structure of Category:Fictional European Americans; it's pointless to delete one subcat rather than deleting the entire set of categories. -Sean Curtin 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Copied from my own talk page. In regards to categorizing fictional people on television: In all honesty, this categorization of fictional people is by and large ridiculous. What exactly is the point to categorizing fictional people on television where heritage changes at the hiring of a new head writer? EJ Wells is a perfect example. James Scott was hired to be a British racecar driver with a mysterious past. New headwriter comes along and all of the sudden we're supposed to believe he's part Italian and what? Did anyone ever know what Susan was? Not likely. That's the problem. And how funny does it look having a tall Brit categorized as a fictional Italian (if he is, don't know) but if you believe the new HW for Days' we are supposed to believe EJ is Italian. This is why I disagree with the entire concept of "Fictional Irish-Americans" or are they "Fictional American-Irish" because they are Irish by decent but American by birth. This is why the categorization of fictional characters with ever changing backgrounds is a odd concept by Wikipedia.IrishLass0128 12:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not an eponymous category. Tim! 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irish by citizenship or ethnicity? If by citizenship, then fictional immigrants to Ireland are in, but all non-human characters are out unless fictional Irish setters carry passports. If by ethnicity, how Irish must the fictional character be and what reliable source tells us that its at least that much? Again, hard to find what the pedigree would be for non-human characters, but find it we must to be objective in keeping this. And additionally, are all fictional characters invented by real people who fit whatever definition of Irishness we decide upon also Irish unless proven otherwise? Since we cannot agree on a NPOV solution without arbitrariness, the category cannot stand and should be deleted. Carlossuarez46 03:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strongly per Carlos Bulldog123 06:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto. The Fictional European American category and all subcats should be discussed first instead of just picking one at random. MrBlondNYC 04:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The occurrence of occasional miscategorization or change is not a reason to remove the category altogether. And it makes no sense to discuss these one at a time. DGG (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that discussion of the whole infrastructure is better, but perhaps that should wait 'til we see what happens to this example. Also, the problem is not occasional miscategorization, it's that no objective guideline exists at all for categorization (of people who are not direct immigrants from Ireland, at least). -- Noneofyourbusiness 00:48, 15 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional Irish people[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 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 debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Fictional_Irish_people
Nominator's rationale:, Delete - overcategorization. Material is interlinked and appropriately categorized; eponymous category is unwarranted.IrishLass0128 19:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the absence of a wider discussion of the extensive Category:Fictional characters by origin structure but in the interim rename to Category:Fictional Irish to match the vast majority of the other subcategories of the by origin structure. Otto4711 20:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but could entertain the idea of renaming with enough discussion. The category is small and addition to the category regarding television characters seems to cause confusion. Perhaps a more defined explation of the category.CelticGreen 00:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename category:Fictional Irish people (lowercase "people"). Keep. 65 articles and 6 subcategories is small?--Mike Selinker 00:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, 65 articles is small in comparison to the total number of articles on Wikipedia, go check out other categories and a minor sampling of those in this category. It's already the name you proposed, lower case P but that's insignificant and makes little to no sense in regard to changing the category, but you can elaborate. There were other categories "Fictional African Americans" (I believe) that were deleted as overcategorized. This falls into the same. Opinion (but that is what this section is about, opinions on keep or delete), the subcategories are redundant and why at least one is up for deletion. Personally, I find it bothersome that an admin would suggest renaming an article to the name it technically already holds and that said admin didn't know that information.CelticGreen 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. For some reason I saw that as an uppercase P, when of course it's not. (You could be a little more polite about it, though.)--Mike Selinker 01:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I could, but I prefer to be honest. Fact is 65 is a small percentage when compared to total number of articles on Wikipedia. The subcategories are redundant to the "main" category. The category is also very subjective if you look at those included. CelticGreen 02:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto and don't rename - the rest of the category goes "...Dutch people... Germans ... Greeks... French people..." so it is correct and consistent as it is. An "Irish" is a drink not a person. Johnbod 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call me uppity but WTF do you mean by "An "Irish" is a drink, not a person"? How offensive are you trying to be? I'm an Irish woman and I am not a drink.CelticGreen 02:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uppity wouldn't be the word - "an Irish" is a whiskey. Johnbod 02:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe where you are, but none of the states I've lived in. You should choose your words far more wisely than insult an entire nationality. And, FYI, uppity means I'm not smiling while you insult me or my relatives.CelticGreen 02:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be spoiling for a fight with people who have no beef with you. Why?--Mike Selinker 08:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the structure of Category:Fictional characters by origin; it's pointless to delete one subcat by nationality instead of deleting all of them. -Sean Curtin 06:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - mainly in regards to categorizing television characters - how do you determine who is of "Irish" decent when you only know one side of one parent of someone's grandparent. Example: Shawn Brady was born in Ireland, but no one knows who his mother was. He married Caroline Brady who's background has never been fully divulged. She could be Irish, but we don't know her maiden name. She had a son, Roman Brady. Who had a daughter Sami Brady with Marlena Evans. Is Sami Irish? We don't know what Marlena is. We don't fully know what Roman, Caroline, or Shawn is but for sake of argument, we'll assume Shawn was full Irish. By the time you get down to Sami she could be less than an eighth Irish, so does she fall into the category?? This is the issue with the category as indicated. Fictional Irish people. Who exactly qualifies as a fictional Irish person?IrishLass0128 12:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are all valid points, but they apply to the whole structure, not just the Irish categories, and also to non-fictional categories. They also don't afffect at all the vast majority of members here, like the characters of Father Ted. I would say all US citizen characters should only go in the Irish-American sub-cat, even if born in Ireland. Johnbod 14:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not an eponymous category as described at WP:OC. Tim! 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irish by citizenship or ethnicity? If by citizenship, then fictional immigrants to Ireland are in. If by ethnicity, how Irish must the fictional character be and what reliable source tells us that its at least that much? And additionally, are all fictional characters invented by real people who fit whatever definition of Irishness we decide upon also Irish unless proven otherwise? Since we cannot agree on a NPOV solution without arbitrariness, the category cannot stand and should be deleted. Carlossuarez46 03:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strong per Carlos Bulldog123 06:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto. The Fictional characters by origin category and all subcats should be discussed first instead of just picking one at random. MrBlondNYC 04:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The occurrence of occasional miscategorization or change is not a reason to remove the category altogether. And it makes no sense to discuss these one at a time. DGG (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you feel "it makes no sense"? I nominated a category that crossed with what I do. As I've seen it there are no "rules" that state all of X category should be discussed at one time. And it's not "occasional" it's pretty consistently miscategorized.IrishLass0128 12:19, 15 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:California United States House elections, 2006[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:California United States House elections, 2006 to Category:United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2006
Nominator's rationale: Rename, Consistency with other states' elections categories. —Markles 17:02, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Transport in Fermanagh[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transport in Fermanagh to Category:Transport in County Fermanagh
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to add the word "county", for consistency with the other subcats of Category:Transport in Northern Ireland by county. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UK community radio[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK community radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Community radio stations in the United Kingdom, convention of Category:Radio stations in the United Kingdom by format. -- Prove It (talk) 15:32, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Halloween songs[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Halloween songs

Nominated this category as the majority of songs in it make no mention of halloween, and it seems to be being used as a general "You could probably play this song at a Holloween party" tag rather than anything encyclopedic. Terrypin 15:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question for nominator The category is tagged for deletion, but the nomination doesn't say that (although it implies deletion). Is deletion what you intend? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per nom because nearly none of the songs in the category are Halloween songs. There is no Devil in the craft, the devil is not the symbol of Halloween. This category should not exist.CelticGreen 02:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to Question Sorry, it's my first time nominating a category - yes, I'd intend deletion as I can't see the purpose of the category, so wouldn't think that renaming would make it any clearer. Terrypin 08:30, 10 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Veronicas EPs[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 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 debate was merge. Kbdank71 16:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Veronicas EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:The Veronicas albums, normally we don't distinguish between albums and EPs. -- Prove It (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per ProveIt. Also, there are only two EPs. --lquilter 15:58, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Soulja Boy[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soulja Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization per hundreds of precedents. Material is appropriately linked and categorized. Otto4711 14:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Onnaghar talk ! review 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just two categories, "albums" and "songs", each of which will be well-represented in the article. --lquilter 15:59, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Evermore EPs[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 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 debate was merge. Kbdank71 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Evermore EPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Evermore albums, normally we consider EPs to be albums. -- Prove It (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete EPs are albums, overcategorization. Carlosguitar 04:51, 11 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks men's basketball coaches[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks men's basketball coaches to Category:Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks basketball coaches
Nominator's rationale: Rename. SFA is another school with different nicknames for the two sexes; here, the women are known as Ladyjacks. See the school's official athletics site. (Please note that the other NCAA Division I school with the nickname of Lumberjacks, Northern Arizona University, uses "Lumberjacks" for both sexes.) Dale Arnett 14:31, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States presidential election templates, 2008[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: speedy delete at request of category creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United States presidential election templates, 2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I made this today, and it's too narrow. I'm using a different one instead. "SPEEDY" recommended. —Markles 14:06, 9 October 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.

Gaelic Athletic Association clubs[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 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 debate was rename all. Kbdank71 16:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Include the word "county" in the category name of these GAA clubs, for consistency with similar proposed renamings for zillions of other by-county categories in Ireland (See CFD Oct 6 etc). For anyone who missed the extended rationale: each of these categories refers to a county of Ireland, which is a sensible division, because counties are the widely-used subdivisions of Ireland's four provinces. They are historically stable and use for local government, sports, elections to Dáil Éireann etc. The word "County" should be included in the sub-category names for clarity, because most Irish county have an eponymous county town. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Elections in California[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Elections in California to Category:Local elections in California
Nominator's rationale: Rename, It's a subcategory of Category:California elections and thus the name is confusing. Its only contents (so far) include elections in Los Angeles, so I assume it's meant to cover only local (not state-wide) elections. —Markles 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for clarity. I can't find any other local elections categories in the U.S., so can't see a precdent for the naming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sport in Ireland by locality[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 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 debate was merge. Kbdank71 16:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sport in Ireland by locality to Category:Sport in Ireland by county
Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with other proposed renamings of Irish by-county categories (see e.g. CfD Oct 6 Tourism in the Republic of Ireland by locality and CfD Oct 6 Religion in the Republic of Ireland by locality. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom & the others. Johnbod 19:23, 11 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wetmorethraupis[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wetmorethraupis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category for a single genus which contains a single species. Rocket000 11:14, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ohio election results[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ohio election results (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is empty. All of its contents have been moved to the more appropriately-titled, Category:Ohio elections. —Markles 10:50, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York election results[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York election results (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Same as Ohio rationale, above. —Markles 13:38, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Professional Warcraft 3 players[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Professional Warcraft 3 players to Category:Professional Warcraft III players
Nominator's rationale: All Warcraft games has Roman numerals in their titles (see: Category:Warcraft games). Visor 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, should be Roman numeral. Carlosguitar 11:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. Snocrates 04:50, 13 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Science awards[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 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 debate was merge. Kbdank71 16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Science awards to Category:Science and engineering awards
Nominator's rationale: Merge, This is a recreation of a previously deleted category. See 2007/6/12 CFD. The creator created a new category (Category:Science awards) in Sept. & moved some, but not all, of the subheads from Sci & Eng Awards out of it; the new cat isn't in the awards hierarchy. I've fixed the hierarchy issue for now so that users can find materials for now until the CFD is done. lquilter 04:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the reasoning was to try to pare and refine Category:Engineering. --lquilter 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the reason as there is a request from Wikipedia to pare down the category as unmanageable. Also, under Engineering Awards there were many that had nothing to do with engineering. It was actually humorous. Sort of like "Outhouse" ends up in an engineering category. But I don't care. I'm not going to try to clean up anything more at Engineering so the unmanageable and ridiculous categorization under Engineering can remain as far as I am concerned. If you consider Physics and Chemistry and Mathematics and every other remotely scientific article as Engineering, fine with me. (Strange, in my field we are always kicking articles out that want to be in -- in Engineering you do the opposite!) (Also, I was told that when Engineers get to hell, the first thing they do is air condition the place.) --Mattisse 22:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no previous category for "Engineering awards"; just a generic category for "science and engineering awards" -- which although broad is definitely needed, since there are, in fact, a lot of awards that cover both. I've now created a subcategory for Category:Engineering awards, which is now the only cat in Category:Engineering; this keeps engineering clean. But Category:Science awards therefore stands as an unnecessary middle layer between Category:Science and engineering awards and the specific sub-categories (e.g., Category:Biology awards). --lquilter 22:23, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:North American Region[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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North American Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: propose delete. Quite unclear what new purpose this cat will serve, that is not already covered by others (such as Category:North American countries in particular). cjllw ʘ TALK 03:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is redundant of North American countries. If there is a move afoot to switch everything over to "regions" that should be discussed separately. --lquilter 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a well known region, and it is not redundat with the North American Countries, because that category is about all the countries in the continent, all the countries in Central America and the Caribbean, this one is only about the region, it's like saying, let's delete the Northern European Countries, because they are already included in the European Countries, it is just as important as any other sub-division of the Americas. Supaman89 18:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't think there's any consensus that North American Region means the three countries (Canada, the U.S.A. and Mexico) currently in this cat. The term is, regrettably, vague. Spacepotato 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Continental North America (that in the 7 continents model includes the West Indies and Central America) must not be confused with the geopolitical region of North America. Separating the category is going to help users to identify and note the differences between the two terms. Also the concerns about "North America" as a region being vague, I think are not well funded, since the government of the three NA countries remarkably define the regions as containing only the three countries (region, not continent). For example North American Leaders' Summit contains sources about it. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But who else defines it that way? what standard, international usage of "regions" includes "North America", that wikipedia is using? and is this part of an overall systemic approach? (also, why capitalize "Region"?)--lquilter 02:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps I should have been clearer in the nomination. It's not so much that the concept of 'North America' can't be agreed upon, but only that we already have categories which fit the bill, and the (recently created) category nominated for deletion here is wholly redundant. Its present contents make it redundant with Category:North American countries. Even if it were to be expanded to include entries other than country subcats, could those proposing to keep please clarify how it would be any different from the pre-existing and well-established Category:North America? What subcats and articles would you propose to be in Category:North American Region that are not already, or could not be inserted, in Category:North America? As a side note, agree that there's no reason to capitalise "region", anyways. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a well known region, and used by some international sport entities like CONCACAF, separating the North American continent in 3 regions, Central America, the Caribbean and North America, where North America just includes Canada, Mexico and the United States. JC 10:50, 12 October 2007 (PST)
    • Do we need to have a separate category (or category structure) to reflect every interest groups' groupings (outside of their own internal structures)? Even "international sports groups" might have quite a variety of approaches, and it's not clear from the category name whose definition applies. I see no reason why CONACAF (which also apparently includes a few South American countries) can't have its own internal structure and just place that within appropriate categories in the existing geographical structures. --lquilter 13:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, if the capitalized R in region seems to be the main problem, we could just leave it in lowercase, but the category has to be kept, as users have explained, Concacaf was just one of many examples; we cannot try to hide a region that's obviously so important, regards. Supaman89 00:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem worthwhile to have a category for 3 States. An article should be able to address this grouping adequately and comprehensively contrast it with other "North American" groupings. If kept, at least uncapitalize "R". Snocrates 04:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Also, harks of North America (Americas), an article fork of North America created by the same proponents and duly deleted shortly afterward. Corticopia 19:32, 13 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women's Flat Track Derby Association teams[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 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 debate was rename to Category:Women's Flat Track Derby Association leagues. Kbdank71 16:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Women's Flat Track Derby Association teams to Category:Women's Flat Track Derby Association members
Nominator's rationale: Rename, "Teams" is inaccurate. WFTDA is an association that has members, all of which are leagues. Each league has 1 or more teams that, as far as I know, don't have their own articles. Only leagues have articles and belong to this category. I suggest replacing "teams" with "members" which should remain sufficient even if WFTDA introduces a membership class aside from leagues. —mjb 03:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor Category:Women's Flat Track Derby Association leagues instead of Category:Women's Flat Track Derby Association members. Leagues seems to be more descriptive. I do think it's good you're nominating this for change, so thanks. Fredsmith2 19:15, 9 October 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diving[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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Diving to Category:Diving (underwater)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A recent attempt to rename this was closed as no consensus since the consensus was to split and a rename target was unclear. Since then, the diving articles about entering water from a height have been split out into Category:Diving (acrobatics). That leaves this category with the underwater diving articles open for renaming. With the proposed target, both diving categories follow the same form for disambiguation. Vegaswikian 02:48, 9 October 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 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_discussion/Log/2007_October_9&oldid=1138389160"