Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28[edit]

Category:Cities in Iceland[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 --Kbdank71 14:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'City' is a major misnomer for almost any settlement in Iceland. Reykjavík, yes, Akureyri, maybe, but Reykjahlíð and most others have tiny populations. Therefore, I suggest renaming the category to Category:Towns and villages in Iceland. Worldtraveller 23:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Size is surely irrelevant. If the places are officially designated cities, they should be categorised as such. So... what is their official designation? Grutness...wha? 08:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am certain the they wouldn't be officially designated cities. For example Vík í Mýrdal is described here as a hamlet, Egilsstaðir here as a town. This page says that in 1998 there were 30 towns and 94 other municipalities, no figure for cities so maybe even Reykjavík is just a big town... Worldtraveller 09:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency. Radiant_>|< 16:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. I think these oddly-named categories we have all over the place stem from the U.S. custom of calling almost anything a city (e.g. Tenney, Minnesota and thousands of others). — Trilobite (Talk) 23:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Settlements of Iceland which we have already. --Bjarki 13:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Bjarki (he is from Iceland, btw). Pavel Vozenilek 18:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bjarki (being from Iceland not relevant). siafu 14:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Bjarki or rename to "Communities ..." or "Municipalities ..." per Maurreen's suggestion under Cities in Greenland above. — Sebastian (talk) 19:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    I'd prefer "settlements" out of these options, although it should probably be "Settlements in..." and not "Settlements of Iceland". "Communities" might work but municipalities are a different thing altogether, a single municipality may include several towns and villages or none at all, Greenland's largest municipalities are larger in area than some European countries. Also, I think these votes (Faroes, Greenland and Iceland) should be merged for consistency.--Bjarki 13:39, 3 August 2005 (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:Obscene image candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Obscene images[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created to go along with Wikipedia:Obscene image, which appears to be a proposed policy that has only been edited by one user. "Obscene" is, of course, extremely subjective, and the CSD-related category and the policy page incorrectly state that images are speediable solely for being "obscene." Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. I'm guessing that some of these images ought to end up at IfD, but some of them may be used in articles. android79 22:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • I removed all of the images in Category:Obscene image candidates for speedy deletion from the category. All but four of them were linked solely from User:Evil Monkey/Nudity. Only after de-populating the category did I realize that this action was probably out of process. For this I apologize, and I will revert the de-population if requested, but I feel it is in our best interests that the bogus speedy deletion notices stay off of these images. An administrator could inadvertantly delete one of these images, and it could give users the wrong impression that Wikipedia is censored. android79 22:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no rename. I oppose the proposal, and have noted such on its talk page. If there needs to be a category created at the time of proposal implementation, then it can be recreated. As of now, it is an empty directory. However, I did see the images listed there originally, and only seen one that was remotely obscene. Naked yoga is not obscene, nor are nude images. ∞Who?¿? 22:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also see this TFD. ∞Who?¿? 23:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As to the depopulation question, well, it is perfectly usual practise to remove speedy tags from things that do not qualify. Admittedly, it is usual to take them somewhere else, but since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, to take them all to IfD would have been unnecessary. -Splash 23:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of the images in question already had IfD or copyvio tags on them as well as the bogus speedy tags. Most of them should probably be deleted, as they are merely present in a single user's gallery of nudity and serve no other purpose. android79 23:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, thanks, I just discovered that. I was looking through IfD to oppose the deletion on censorship grounds, but most of them have copyvio problems it seems (which probably means they should go to WP:CP rather than IfD, but that's not relevant here). -Splash 00:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You had me at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Buffyg 01:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:37, 29 July 2005 (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:Innocent people killed by police[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 --Kbdank71 14:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent is a subjective word in this context, better name for this catergory should be found. Jooler 20:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Innocent people killed by police → Category:People shot dead by police. ∞Who?¿? 21:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Someone should improve it" is not helpful. Stop wasting our time. Mirror Vax 23:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, that's what CfD is partly about. Working out how to improve things is best done by discussion. If you are short on time, you need not weigh yourself down by joining in. -Splash 23:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discussion is done on talk pages. This is politics. Mirror Vax 23:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I have to disagree with your statement here. We are here to improve things, not merely to delete them. Otherwise, we could just speedy everything that someone else already emptied. --ssd 04:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my experience, VFD/CFD is about deleting things, not improving them. I have no objection to aggressively recatagorizing articles (I do it myself). But I am careful to preserve useful information. CFD is about destroying (or censoring if you like) information that a majority of people who haunt this place determine, in a snap judgement, that they dislike. Reasoned discussion can't take place in such a hostile environment. Mirror Vax 06:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Innocence is not subjective. In most countries you are innocent until the moment you are proven guilty. Further, innocence is entirely verifiable as you just need to call up the relevant police authority/courthouse. However the cat does need a better name. I can't help thinking that we must already have Category:People shot by police, but apparently we do not. -Splash 23:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Splash says, innocence is no more POV than guilty. You might argue that having an "Innocent people killed by police" cat but not "Guilty people killed by police" is biased, so we could create the latter, even though its members would probably not be notable for that reason alone. Seems fair? Agentsoo 01:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You miss the point. If people are innocent until proven guilty, then by any definition there are NO guilty people shot at all. How many dead people are tried after their death and found guilty in a court of law? As I said "Innocent" in this context is subjective. - Furthermore this catergory used to contain James Ashley who was shot by Sussex Police during a drugs raid. He was an habitual criminal and drug dealer. What was he innocent or guilty of?. We now have Category:People shot dead by police, and so Category:Innocent people killed by police should be removed. Jooler 06:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename--nixie 01:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I se several problems here aside from the POV question. First what is police? Does intelligence agents, security forces or special units count? Secondly would murders commited by corrupt police officers be included? Finaly what about dictatorships? One could argue that most of the people killed in Stalin's purges where killed by police for example. --Sherool 12:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to people killed by police or something similar, guilty or not. Radiant_>|< 16:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. It is important to distinguish between people intentionally killed by police (e.g. for punishment or to suppress some form of activity) and those killed accidentally as a result of a misunderstanding. The current title is weighed against the police in question, and "innocent" makes the people killed seem like hapless, saintly victims, which is not always, if ever, the case. McPhail 19:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, having this category makes Category:People shot dead by police very problematic as we are by association saying everyone in this other category is guilty. By definition nobody in this second category was found guilty in a court of law therefore they must be considered innocent, even if their guilt is seemingly self-evident. Who are we to assign guilt? Also I'm not sure if these categories aren't a little too specific anyway. Rje 19:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Category:People shot dead by police asuming this category is intended to only list victims of deliberate use of deadly force (as seems to be the case). However if it's supposed to list any person killed by police by any method merging the two into Category:People killed by police would be better (would also include drunken suspects that die from injuries sustained during a brawl with police officers and such). --Sherool 22:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge as above. (though it should really be Category:People killed by police as there are other ways to kill people.)Osomec 02:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after any necessary merging into Category:People shot dead by police — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatusRoma (talk • contribs) 04:49, 30 July 2005
  • Comment I really can't be sure what the point of this category is. Just about anywhere, including countries that don't have the death penalty, the police can shoot you without judicial process that determines guilt or innocence. Lethal force guidelines have a lot more to do with whether police or individual officers believe you to present an immediate threat to their lives or another's. You certainly have cases where the police use lethal force to lethal or non-lethal result and discover after the fact that the person they shot did not have the means or intent to harm others seriously. It is apparent from numerous cases, particularly in New York City in the United States, that being a threat in fact and presenting a merely apparent fact to the police leaves juries with sometimes reasonable doubts at the conclusion of criminal procedures. There is also an outstanding debate on this matter in the UK, where the London Metropolitan Police are reckoned to have discharged 55 shots under their lethal force rules without a single shot fired in return and several people with no demonstrable criminal involvement shot, sometimes fatally. Conversely, being a guilty of a crime has never been an acceptable basis for use of police violeance. Disturbing though much of this may be, I am not sure that the precise nature of that problem is effectively communicated by the category name. Buffyg 05:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I had some of the same sentiment. I took a look at the articles, and these are noted for being killed by police (guilty or innocent), so I changed my vote from delete. I do not agree with the current name, and I'm not quite sure if I liked the one I even agreed upon for merge. All I know is its current name needs to go. ∞Who?¿? 06:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Innocent people killed by police → Category:People shot dead by police. We can then rename that category to Category:People killed by police. Robert A West 19:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think shot dead is any better, plenty of people are beaten to death in cells/otherwise killed on purpose or by accident by the police. For instance of those who died in the Moscow theater hostage crisis not many were shot but a good proportion were obviously 'innocent', no POV involved. If some renaming were going on, I'd want something that enabled articles other that just person ones, something like, Category:Wrongful killings by the police or somesuch. --zippedmartin 20:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That does seem like an improvement, but by what criteria ought one judge a killing wrongful, particularly in a comparative legal context? Buffyg 09:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three articles in this category are about people who were shot dead by the police. NatusRoma 03:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Who, then Rename per Robert A West. siafu 14:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge with general cat. Why destroy a meaningful distinction? I guess many people are interested in this sort of information just now. Even if it's imprecise, it's still better than having to read all articles on people shot dead by police (of which there should be many more. BTW, I'd be fine with including Stalin's victims, as per Sherool.) However, as of now, all three articles could be merged into Category:Unarmed people shot dead by police. — Sebastian (talk) 19:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
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:Latvian education[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 defer until category titles discussion completes --Kbdank71 13:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. I've changed the category for the corresponding articles into Category:Education in Latvia (or into relevant subcategory) which is consistent with the names of other subcategories of Category:Education by country. --Jūzeris | Talk 20:18, 28 July 2005 (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:Politics of the United Kingdom[edit]

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

The result of the debate was defer until category titles discussion completes --Kbdank71 13:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, cfd notice added on July 26 by Agentsoo but not listed here. --Kbdank71 18:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is replaced by Category:Politics of the UK. Any interested parties may wish to call by Wikipedia:Category titles which is dealing with the question of abbreviations of country names. -Splash 23:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Move all contents to the category with the full name to be consistent with the majority of United Kingdom categories. Osomec 02:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object and agree with Osomec.--Huaiwei 12:47, 31 July 2005 (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:Olympic Champions: 4x100m Women → Category:Olympic champions in athletics 4 x 100 m relay (women)[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 listify --Kbdank71 13:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Capitalize: champions
2. Sport must be mentioned here (could be swimming or athletics). btw: it is athletics.
3. Maybe the name of the event should be written "4 × 100 m relay", lots of alternatives.
4. Maybe the ":" should be removed; describing is prefered.
BTW: there is (or should be) a same content in Olympic medalists in athletics (women)#4 × 100 m relay. Remove the category altogether? -DePiep 12:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As noted, it's duplicate information. --Kbdank71 17:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is another instance of a general problem with using categories for things, that IMO, ought to be lists. Without a separate category the champions cannot be distinguished from the other, non-gold, medalists, so in a strict sense the information is not duplicated (another example is the set of Oscar related categories where there are separate categories for winners, non-winning nominees, films casting winners and films casting non-winning nominees). As far as I know we don't have any policy about this, so I think the only principled vote here should be keep (rename as suggested) since I don't think it meets any deletion criteria (if you disagree, please state which one, be specific). I would love to codify something about this as policy, or even a guideline, so CFD discussions such as this have something to point to. There have been some abortive attempts to revise WP:CSL along these lines. Is there any interest in pursuing this? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • So even though you think this ought to be in a list, you're in favor of keeping the category, even though the list that already exists (hence my delete/duplicate vote), in fact it contains much more information than the category does (who won gold, silver, bronze; the category, as you pointed out, only lists gold). Might I ask why? --Kbdank71 19:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because there's no specific criteria we can point to that says it should be deleted. We chose not to delete the Oscar categories a while back (actually, the latest time there were basically no votes either way), so there's a precedent. I'd like us to be consistent. Unless there's a specific criteria that's part of some policy or guideline, I think the default has to be "keep" (sort of like you can't speedy something just because you don't like it). -- Rick Block (talk) 20:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think the Oscar categories were precedent setting for this. There were many oscar categories covering every award. I could only see this one category for one event for women. There is no men's category for the same event, no other categories. As for a specific policy or guideline, there may not be, just like there isn't for many Cfd's. But common sense tells me that if we have duplicate information, we don't need to keep both. Especially when the category has far less information than the list does. --Kbdank71 20:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The specific Oscar category CFD I'm referring to is this one which has the same attributes (same information plus much more redundantly available in a list). Your common sense today, in fact the collective common sense of everyone choosing to vote in CFD today, does not necessarily arrive at the same conclusion as the collective common sense some other day (and, per the vote below, doesn't seem to match user:Splash's). Perhaps you and Splash want to verbally duke it out, but since the current policy doesn't support my common sense I'll abstain (please note I didn't actually vote above). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator, do not delete. The cat only includes gold-medallists (I presume) so is distinct from the list in question which includes all of the medallists. Extracting infomation about gold medal achievment is surely encyclopedic? -Splash 23:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the cat includes articles for silver and bronze meadalists also (of course, they don't appear in the table above, but I guess that's neither here nor there). --Kbdank71 14:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)#[reply]
      • Oh right. I'm a little confused. The table referenced in the nomination appears to include all the medallists. The table in the cat includes...some countries, all medallists?I presumed the cat was only gold because of the word 'champion'. Very confused. I think the best representation for the information is in a list which allows for more usful information to be included. So listify and delete. -Splash 17:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify & delete. Overcategorization. This is better covered in a list since that would allow us to specify the exact lap times, countries of origin, etc. Radiant_>|< 16:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
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:Movie websites[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same anon as below added the cfd notice but didn't list it here. Wants to rename it to Category:Film-related websites or Category: Film websites . --Kbdank71 18:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12.73.195.132 (talk · contribs) user assumed to be the same as the user who originally added the cfd tag ∞Who?¿? 03:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as below. Radiant_>|< 16:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose The majority of sites use the name movie. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a "movie" subcategory in the "film" category. I could possibly see renaming this to "Film and movie websites", but I don't see the need. It is irrelevant who added the cfd notice. -- Samuel Wantman 08:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it is irrelevant who added the notice for the most part. Like I stated before, the problem is we never reached a consensus, and some of these could be considered bad faith noms. But consider them good, thats ok, now we don't have consistency because then we will have "Cinema", "Film" and "Movie", so there is no longer consistency. This is why I proposed a suspend on specific Cfd's until we can discuss it on Category titles. Otherwise I fear we will be back here again deciding the same issue due to lack of consistency. For this particular Cfd,I oppose per Kbdank71. ∞Who?¿? 08:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the consensus was to use "film" in most of the CfD discussions. The only one that did not reach a conclusion was "Cinema of Foo". For the most part there was a consensus to call the things that we watch "films" instead of "movies" or "cinemas". The problem was what to call the entire film enterprise in a specific country. The consistent naming of categories is a good thing, but not an unbreakable rule. It is a good thing because it helps make sense of the topic and helps us be clear about how we are using words. When consistency does not help make sense of the topic, then we should use a different word and forgo being consistent. The categorization of film as it stands now is pretty good. Most of the categories and most of the articles say "film". Some do not, but I don't find that to be a glaring problem. If you think we need to discuss cinema/film all over again, bring it up here or at Category titles. But I think we are almost done, and consensus is within our grasp. -- Samuel Wantman 09:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, there doesnt have to be strict consistency, especially with items such as these where "film" is definately not a good choice. I see your point about the problem with "Cinema of Foo", and how it does and does not relate to other Cfd's. I am willing to change or not change those cat's which will not be arguably ambigous or poorly named. The point of suspending is because a consistency was being asked for such ridiculous categories as these, and if it didn't stop, it would be better for the whole to take it to Category titles. When the rest of these Cfd's listed finish, if there are no more similar listings, then there probably will not be a need to go there, as long as the consensus, or lack there of is followed by all parties this time. ∞Who?¿? 09:46, 1 August 2005 (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:Movie theaters[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 --Kbdank71 13:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same anon as below added the cfd notice but didn't list it here. Wants to rename it to Category:Film theaters. --Kbdank71 18:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12.73.195.132 (talk · contribs) user assumed to be the same as the user who originally added the cfd tag. ∞Who?¿? 03:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Cinemas and Movie theaters. This should be understandable to all speakers of English. "Movie Theater" is an Americanism. "Cinemas" can be mistaken by Americans as being "Cinema in Foo". Using both recognizes that there are two common names depending upon where you are from and that neither name is more correct than the other. I'd also recommend soft redirects from both Category:Cinemas and Category:Movie theatres. -- Samuel Wantman 08:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Wantman/Who. siafu 14:23, 2 August 2005 (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:Cinema pioneers[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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue, rename to Category:Film pioneers, replace "Cinema" with "Film" for terminological consistency. 12.73.195.155 02:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I find myself unable to support a user who has unilaterally wholesale reversed a previous CfD, is trying to force the issue (which is back under discussion below) with all of these nominations and has vandalized the CfD page. Considering that the issue has been returned to discussion below, I see no value in contemplating these CfRs until that one is complete. At that point they will either be no-brainer keep or renames as appropriate. -Splash 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agree with Splash. Also this user removed the {{Cfd}} from Category:Film by country, and attemped to get Category:Cinema by country speedied. I would not mind this Cfr in general, if there wan't such a strong oppostion and support (no consensus) for the original Cfr. This naming needs to be decided as a whole. ∞Who?¿? 08:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Splash and Who. --Kbdank71 14:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning. The 3 of you are engaging in wholesale assumption-making about who the current anon is who's requesting changes, accusing him of dubious 'crimes' committed by someone else, and blanketly refusing to discuss the merits of this and other changes he proposes. You have lost all sense of civility, objectivity, and reasonableness, and your "Oppose" votes cannot be taken seriously by any reasonable Wikipedian. In fact, your statements are an embarrassment to this site. For the record, I have reported your actions here on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts page earlier today, and hopefully someone will give you three the needed kick in the ass for your asinine conduct. PS - I support the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.195.132 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 July 2005 assumed to be same user as nom. ∞Who?¿? 03:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Splash, Who. Buffyg 01:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. Radiant_>|< 16:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. (Wow! For once I actually agree with Radiant!) It doesn't matter who listed this at CfD. On its own, I could go either way, but unless someone is proposing to switch all the film categories back to "cinema", it doesn't make sense to keep this one saying "cinema". "Film pioneers" makes as much sense on its own, and more sense in relation to all the other categories and articles that are named "film". -- Samuel Wantman 08:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspend per Who. siafu 14:25, 2 August 2005 (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:Movie soundtracks[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue rename to Category:Film soundtrack albums, replace "Movie" with "Film" for terminological consistency, plus add "albums" to clarify that this Cat actually deals with music track recordings and not other aspects of complete soundtrack. 12.73.195.155 02:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • See above. Although there is some discussion to be had about the word "albums". -Splash 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above, also agree about "albums" discussion. ∞Who?¿? 08:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose reguardless of consistency, I think current name is better, however it can still be further discussed / suspended if need be. ∞Who?¿? 09:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above. --Kbdank71 14:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as requested. [[User:|12.73.195.132]] 23:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
12.73.195.132 (talk · contribs) assumed to be the same user as nom. ∞Who?¿? 04:23, 2 August 2005 (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:Movie genres[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Film genres for consistent header terminology. "Movie" is slang, juvenile, in addition. Primary category is Category:Film and subcategory's contents reflect change to Film. Ergo... 12.73.195.155 02:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12.73.195.132 (talk · contribs) assumed to be the same user as nom. ∞Who?¿? 03:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Category:Film uses an ambiguous name. This should probably be called Category:Motion picture genres. 132.205.3.20 14:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE that this issue seems broad enough to become a later topic in our Category Titles discussion. Radiant_>|< 16:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. Most of the genres listed have the word "film" and not "movie". "Film genres" is perfectly understandable, and consistent with all the other film categories. Another choice would be "Cinematic genres". There is already an article called Cinematic genre. -- Samuel Wantman 08:49, 1 August 2005 (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:Towns in Switzerland[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 13:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Switzerland, town and city are synonymes for all practical uses of the word - there are no towns which are not cities as well and vice versa. So this (meanwhile empty) category should be removed. (Category:Cities in Switzerland exists and the articles in Category:Towns in Switzerland have been moved to either Category:Cities in Switzerland or Category:Municipalities of Switzerland (which is the official generic name in Switzerland for places of any size which are official government subdivisions) . --Irmgard 22:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No argument. siafu 22:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_28&oldid=1121947266"