Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 25 January 27 >

January 26[edit]

Category:Charter School of Wilmington[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 discussion was upmerge. Kbdank71 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Charter School of Wilmington to Category:High schools in Delaware
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Single entry category (after removing the user pages from the category). Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2008 (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:Order of the Oak Crown recipients[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 discussion was listify. Kbdank71 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Order of the Oak Crown recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete; overcategorization by award. This is an award for the Order of the Oak Crown, which has been awarded since 1841 to, apparently, hundreds of people. Virtually none of them link to [|the award page], and the category only has 7 recipients (including Charles, Prince of Wales), so I take it that it is not a "defining" award for those people. Recommend deletion of the "* recipients" category, and adding these recipients to the award page in a "Notable recipients" subhead. Lquilter (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2008 (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:Public Information Research[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public Information Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous cat for an organization. Six articles in the category: one is the organization, one is a founder, and four are spin-off org projects. These can all be linked from the articles (and all that I checked are already). Lquilter (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2008 (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:Places of worship in Israel[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 discussion was keep. Kbdank71 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Places of worship in Israel to Category:Places of worship in Israel and Israeli-controlled territories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category and its subcategories includes places of worship located in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The West Bank is not regarded as part of Israel by any reliable sources that I am aware of; the Israeli Foreign Ministry regards it as "disputed territory" belonging to no state (terra nullius), while the Israeli Supreme Court regards it as occupied territory. Internationally the West Bank is regarded as Palestinian land under Israeli occupation. East Jerusalem has been officially annexed by Israel, but this annexation has not been recognized internationally, and indeed has been condemned.

As an alternative, the category could be split, but this is probably likely to cause more problems than it solves. I suggest renaming to "Israel and Israeli-controlled territory" because it sidesteps discussion of whether the territories are really "occupied" or "Palestinian" — although those are both neutral and accurate terms, they seem to be touchy on Wikipedia and I respect that. However, a category which assigns the al-Aqsa Mosque as "in Israel" is considerably worse than touchy. <eleland/talkedits> 21:02, 26 January 2008 (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:Cities and towns in Punjab Pakistan[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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Cities and towns in Punjab Pakistan to Category:Cities and towns in Punjab (Pakistan)
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate with poorer name. LeSnail (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2008 (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.

Actor deaths[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 discussion was delete all. Kbdank71 18:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actor deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:2008 actor deaths
Category:2007 actor deaths
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize dead people by profession. There is no need to split actors up this way. Here is a bunch of precedents thanks to User:ProveIt. LeSnail (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy, if possible. Recreated category (WP:CSD criteria G4), and Not an exact match for any of the indexed precedents, but definitely a subset of Category:Dead people by occupation, and from the sequence of events,[1] it appears to be part of the Wiki-reaction to the recent death of a well-known actor. Pairadox (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - along with all the other categories spawned by Heath Ledger's death. No intersections of living status and profession, as has been established time and again. Otto4711 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We just don't categorize by death. Category has been created by yet another obvious sock puppet of User:Creepy Crawler. Doczilla (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per Doczilla, this sockpuppeteer is thoroughly intractable, never talks and never stops. salting his goals may be the only way to stop some of his behavior. ThuranX (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per wide precedent against category intersections with dead/living. Maralia (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per everyone.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSubcategorisations of the death category? What next? Dimadick (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The media certainly considers the death of an actor (or other well known personality) notable. Just look at the attention that recent celebrity deaths have created. A sub category seems very appropriate to me.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2008 (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:1909 Births[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 discussion was already merged. Kbdank71 18:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:1909 Births to Category:1909 births
Nominator's rationale: Non-standardly capitalized duplicate. LeSnail (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There is no need for the "b" to be capitalized. Also, no category of births of one year have the "b" in "births" capitalized. For example, its Category:1958 births and not Category:1958 Births. --Nadir D Steinmetz 20:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge Otto4711 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge Lquilter (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge. Doczilla (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category wasn't tagged; I found it before I found this nom and nominated it for speedy renaming. With the backlog at speedy rename it may happen faster here than there, though. Snocrates 22:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's really odd. I nominated it with twinkle and it should have been tagged automatically. I'll have to watch carefully. Everything else seems to have worked. LeSnail (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2008 (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:Posthumous works[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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Posthumous works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Posthumous Works" is so vague a term as applied by the category that I had to start a discussion on the category page about it, and the only response is that the assistant grips count enough that any work wherein if any person in any way connected to the work dies, it's someone's Posthumous work. All people die sooner or later, that most dies while engaged in some long term goal doesn't confer added notability of any sort to their long term project. It gets incredibly diluted when we water it down to 'actors', because that dismisses the directors, producers, composers, cinematographers, costumers... I could go on and on. Further, because most commercial artists engaged in long term works, such as Charles Schulz, Mort Walker, most comic book artists, all complete works months, weeks, or days before publication, all those works are subject to inclusion. The terms of inclusion are so wide open that anything could be considered posthumous works. One could even argue that since the boxing match isn't considered over until a few seconds after the dead boxer hits the mat, and the other boxer is declared winner, that any boxing match in which one competitor dies is thus posthumous work. can we add the Daytona 500 to the category if it isn't deleted, as it ended after the death of Dale Earnhardt, thus proving that it is a posthumous work? This category exists as nothing more than an honorary title, a memorial recognition, and adds nothing to an article or subject which cannot be better covered better by good prose in the article, instead of this stupid category.
(I am aware that a POINT nomination was just closed, but as that was closed for POINT, not for content and quality of the category, and because I came to this in a totally different way than the other discussion, I'm nominating this in a serious way. ThuranX (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of agree that it should be deleted, as it is too general. Perhaps it can be moved to more specific posthumous categories such as "Posthumous films" or "Posthumous books." There is already "Posthumous albums."  Chantessy  16:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — There are legitimate uses for this category. The criteria should be narrowed, but not deleted. What about this criteria: One or more major contributor(s) (someone who would make the movie poster, book cover, etc.) were dead before the work was even (really) started. Sir Laurence Olivier was dead long before his appearance in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. John Wayne was in some commercials that weren't done until long after his death. And there is the dancer/singer who appeared in a music video with his daughter (I forget both of their names) long after his death. L. Ron Hubbard "authored" a few books long after his death. (Talk about a "ghost" writer.) The Silmarillion was not even near being scheduled for publishing until long after J. R. R. Tolkien's death. His son even finished another of his works long after his death. These are works that should be included in this category. —
    • Reply Any criterion established for inclusion would be arbitrary. Consider the manuscript found in a trunk 300 years after the author dies. It is really posthumous, or an artifact? What if it were found to be 1600 years old? What if he dies the morning of release, but before the stores open? Where would the cut-off be? And how big a star do you have to be in film? Above the title, below? On the poster? What if it's not that sort of poster? If a CGI 'you' is used the year your likeness passes into the public domain, is it really YOUR work, or is it a CGI constructed modeled on you? In your music example, I think you're thinking of Natalie Cole and Nat King Cole. But that was old footage respliced, and his old track remastered with her. That's not his creative efforts bent towards the purpose of a duet with her, and thus not a new work of his. In fact, that song was, by her own admission at the time, a tribute to him, a memorial. (I thought that Silmarillion was closer to publication at his death, my mistake.) As for Christopher's works, those are his. We can't know whether or not his father ever intended those bit and notes left behind to be released or seen even privately as 'works', or just 'work product', that is, the secret stuff that leads to a big public thing. And then the limiters are still difficult to sort out. At what point do you go from having a posthumous work to just being a dead stuntman? When we have to make so many subjective judgments about the value of a person, of a person's contribution, and of their job itself, we are too far into opinion. Finally, what about when a lost painting is discovered. If it's not known to the public, is it a posthumous work? Clearly, it was completed before death, and agin, we're making judgments that we shouldn't be. ThuranX (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply — I answered half of the questions that you posed, especially about what to include, before you asked them. Go read my reasons for opposing the deletion again. — Val42 (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where is your post? are you the unsigned above? If so, you didn'treally answer them already, as I asked a bunch of questions of that unsigned poster. ThuranX (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although I am conflicted about it, ultimately I feel that the vagueness of "works" dooms the category. Specific categories for types of posthumous works might pass muster with me but the generic works category, no. I don't believe that a film for example is defined by the death of someone involved in it, even the death of a principle actor like Heath Ledger (and Heath Ledger's role in the yet-to-be-released Batman sequel is what's driving the formation of a number of these posthumous categories). If retained, this should be designated a container category only for more specific subcats, which should be very few in number. Otto4711 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but split - I would suggest that the category should be limtied to works first published after the author's death. The main subcategory should be posthumous books, also albums. Sicne we do not categorise performers by performance now posthumous films should be a small category. Posthumous appearances by actor's presumably involve the use of a clip filmed in the actor's life; these may be regarded as the equivalent of quoting an earlier work in a book, and should thus be excluded form the category. However, the Silmarilion, The Mystery of Edwin Drood and several other books properly appear. I would suggest that editions of author's drafts, where the work (or something like it) has been published should be excluded. Perhaps the numerous posthumous works of J R R Tolkein produced by his son ought to be collected in a subcategory. Like Otto4711 I would prefer to see his as (or mainly as) a parent for subcategories, which might enabkle us to see the wood for the trees. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous works is by definition, works such as books/films/songs MickMacNee (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Keep, Split, and Weed. There is a place for posthumous publication of original works. But it really doesn't work for actors. - J Greb (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I continue to stand firmly by my Delete rationale, I do note that in the spirit of compromise, the phrase 'original works' would help eliminate the film matter, as that's a large-scale collaborative work, not the original work or a person or partners. maybe therein, if this is kept, could be some distinction... partners yes, teams no. This would allow one author in if he died but his partner survived the last publication, and would acknowledge the time and investment in the written work. I still stand firm on delete, but I know my reasoning may not prevail, so I'm marking out things for a later category compromise if needed. ThuranX (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I also think that this category will become some sort of compromise. — Val42 (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for vagueness and lack of clear inclusion criteria. Some subgroup of this (e.g., posthumous novels) with clear criteria might split off, but this cat itself must go. Doczilla (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would accept posthumous literary works, if it included major works by sequentialists(Will Eisner's The Plot), specified that situations where another author completes the book (Ludlum, R.E. Howard), are not acceptable unless they were already partnered before death, and that 'previously undiscovered early manuscripts' don't count. In other words, The category should only narrowly include those instances where the last thing a person was working on actively was published after his/her death. Acceptable inclusions would be The Plot by Eisner, The Prince by Macchiavelli, Between the Acts (Woolf), probably a few of Seuss' last books as 'LeSeig', (as he wrote fast, wrote often, and farmed to McKie and others in collaborative works long before death), Portrait of an Artist, as an Old Man, and so on. These cases where an author opts not to publish, and the publishers scavenge his attic in hopes of making a few more bucks, hardly seem the same, as do cases where the publishers opt not to publish, only to recognize the big bucks the name draws after death. Capitalizing on the death isn't the same as finishing, sending out, dying, and it being published. ThuranX (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some works are notable for their posthumous nature: Diary of a Young Girl and Maurice come to mind. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2008 (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:U.S. Highways in Washington, D.C.[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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. Highways in Washington, D.C. to Category:U.S. Highways in the District of Columbia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While most categories do in fact say "in Washington, D.C.", not "in the District of Columbia", I believe highways are a special case. The AASHTO log of U.S. Highways and FHWA log of Interstates both list "District of Columbia", and older shields that include the "state" name use either "DC" (Image:DC us50 shield.jpg) or "District of Columbia" (Image:BGS DC 95 standalone.jpg). So it's a question of which standard to use, and these are highways that span multiple states, so we should use the "state" name, not the city name. NE2 08:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The name of the district is District of Columbia, and the category should be named as such. See below. —Son (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons of consistency with non-road cats. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for consistency, and "DC" and "District of Columbia" are essentially synonymous with "Washington DC" (but I live there, so I have a local opinion). While it may be the "District of Columbia", the license plates even say "Washington DC". You're also welcomed to "Washington DC". Consistency. --MPD T / C 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I looked into the history of Washington, D.C., and while the district exists, it is synonymous with the city itself. Perhaps if this was the mid-19th Century, we'd go with "District of Columbia," but given that we're supposed to use common (verified, not neologism) names over technical names, then we should keep the cat as such. Not only is it consistency, but it's the use of common names. —Son (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I proposed many of the DC articles for renaming in the last few weeks, I did leave a few using 'District of Columbia' since I felt that was acceptable in those areas. If I read your comment correctly, are use suggesting that all of the remaining 'District of Columbia' categories should be renamed? If so, do you feel strongly enough about those to nominate them? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While "District of Columbia" and "Washington, D.C." are coterminus and essentially synonymous, one is still a state (for the purposes of discussion) and one is a city. One could argue that there's need for consistency with the other DC-related categories, but one could also argue that there's need for consistency with the other highway-related categories. IMHO, the latter is more important. -- NORTH talk 14:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency with other state categories. AND because we don't have categories for cities for US highways, so this is a bad precedent to set. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is an insular area. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:38, 1 February 2008 (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:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state)[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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is redundant. NE2 08:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, current name matches conventions of Category:Transportation in Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:Georgia (U.S. state). However, point taken, yes it is redundant. -- Prove It (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it matches conventions of other categories. If there was an Atlanta, Georgia in the country of Georgia, then the article would be listed as Atlanta, Georgia (U.S. state). --Son (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course. And there are no U.S. Highways in the country of Georgia. --NE2 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons of consistency with non-road cats. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I thought that we only used the dab in the category name when it was not clear from the rest of the category name that the category is for the US State? Using US twice in the name does appear to be overkill and makes for an oddly named category. Yes the current name is constant with the state dab at the end, but how many other categories already include US in the other part of the name? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: unless all other highway related categories (see [2]) for this state are also changed. The link references a CFD closed 1 December 2006 where the State Highway category was dab'd. It also seems that This category was also renamed at that time to its current name.  — master sonT - C 00:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There might be "state highways" in the country; there are definitely not U.S. Highways in it. --NE2 05:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose all categories/articles for the state of Georgia by norm are identified by (state) in the name; forget trying to carve out exceptions and wasting our time. Hmains (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, mainly per Son's comment above and NE2's response. Disambiguation should only be used when necessary, and here it's redundant. -- NORTH talk 15:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This DAB should only be used when "U.S." is not indicated elsewhere in the name. See, e.g., Category:United States Navy Georgia-related ships. Snocrates 22:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the US is funding a pipeline in Georgia (country), so it is plausible that the US can fund a highway in Georgia (country). 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A U.S. Highway is not a U.S.-funded highway; it's a highway numbered and signed as part of the U.S. Highway system. --NE2 11:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A US highway category can be interpreted as a US FUNDED highway. Clarity is a good reason to keep the current name. Clarity should be paramount in naming categories. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • At which point a major highway renaming would be needed. This is so unlikely as to be not worth considering as an issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this seems pretty obvious, another Georgia cat that doesn't dab: Category:United States Senate elections in Georgia. --Holderca1 talk 17:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the disambiguation in the cat name is overkill in this case. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:27, 01 February 2008 (GMT)
  • Support to eliminate redundancy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems silly to use disambiguation when it is redundant. Zoporific 09:26, 1 February 2008 (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:Ahwaz[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ahwaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category was created by User:Arab League to push Arab nationalist POV of fringe movements that only have questionable websites. A category already exists for the Iranian city of Ahvaz/Ahwaz (Category:Ahvaz). Khorshid (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves only to further creating editor's walled garden. The included items are also up for AfD. ThuranX (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Ahvaz is a city also and fringe/unencyclopedic intrepretation should not be accepted. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per Category Speedy deletion policy: This should be used where there is no room for any doubt whatsoever that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory. In this case , the Category:Ahwaz is invented to show a geographical Category that is not present in the real life and the creator wants it to be built in future,then that could not be used in the pages to group the present geographical or political entities. That's just alike to make a Category such as Category:Californian Republic and put it under every Californian article!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete while there are undeniable separatist movements in the Iranian province of Khuzistan aiming to ethnically cleanse the province from its Persian, Luri, Bakhtiari and Qashqai Turkic residence and to deliver it as a Arab homeland to the Arabs, these articles are partisan. They fail to describe the external ties of the separatists, and the extent of support under population. In addition they do not show that all these oragnizations are different names of the same and they only refer to their own pan-Arabist propaganda websites as "sources". Waht is more disturbing is that they call the province Khuzistan as Al-Ahwaz, while Ahvaz is only the name of its capital and the region has never been called as such by any one else than the pan-Arabists.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why do all the sudden these Ahwaz sites show up? Is there some systematic effort going on here?--Zereshk (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2008 (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:Nucleus[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 discussion was rename to Category:Cell nucleus per article. Kbdank71 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nucleus to Category:Cellular nucleus
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To distinguish from an atomic nucleus. Snocrates 02:53, 26 January 2008 (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/2008_January_26&oldid=1138390417"