Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 23 June 25 >

June 24[edit]

Category:Spawn(comic)Character(s) to Category:Spawn characters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't disambiguate until / unless we need to ... -- ProveIt (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Albums with songs featured on a Hip Hope Hits album[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 07:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many successful songs end up on compilation albums eventually -- ProveIt (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Portugal portal selected articles to Category:Portugal Portal[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Portugal Portal selected articles. Conscious 13:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or whatever they end up doing. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Macao people categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 13:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Macanese", in most cases, refers to the Macanese people, who're people with mixed Portuguese and Asian (usually Chinese) ancestry. The previous CfR decision regarding Macao should be overturned, with the original categories undeleted. — Instantnood 22:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment so what are you actually proposing? Have you tagged any categories. Until you lay out what precisely is involved I will have to oppose Osomec 17:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it's clear enough, that is, to overturn the renaming of the categories for judges and for people by occupation, to overturn the merge of the categories for people, and to undelete the deleted categories. Yes they (category:Macanese judges and category:Macanese people by occupation) are tagged, except for category:Macanese people, which won't be renamed, merged or deleted as a result of this nomination. — Instantnood 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the condition for user:Osomec to cast an oppose vote no longer exists, his vote should not be counted as an oppose one. — Instantnood 17:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Red link to Category:WikiProject Red Link Recovery[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match other members of Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects -- ProveIt (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Novels first[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge with Category:First novels to Category:Debut novels. Conscious 13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:First novels. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Railway lines of belgium[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - TexasAndroid 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Now empty, this category had an incorrect capitalisation in the country name. --Welsh 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Media of the Republic of China <--> Category:Taiwanese media[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 withdrawn. — Instantnood 17:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I realize that naming is a thorny issue in regards to this particular country, I also don't see an obvious reason why there should be two separate media categories for it, especially considering that one contains only media-related subcategories and the other contains only articles. I strongly suggest merging the two, but I leave it to CFD to determine which way the merge should go. Bearcat 18:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both. "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" do not entirely overlaps. — Instantnood 23:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Match it to whatever is the favored flavor "Media of country" or "countryish media" If one of these already matches, fine. If neither matches it should be made and both of these should be deleted. On the naming issue: In common language, Taiwan = ROC. There isn't enough non-Taiwan (on the island only) media to care about in the ROC to care about a distinction. SchmuckyTheCat 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: ROC ≠ Taiwan. There were newspapers published in mainland China during the ROC era, but had never been published within the present-day territories of the ROC. There are also newspapers published only on Quemoy or on Matsu. Please dont ignore existing Wikipedia official policies regarding the ROC/Taiwan issue, and please take a look at how the categories for transport, islands and townships are organised like. — Instantnood 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are ignoring policies. You've proven yourself to have strange ideas about these. SchmuckyTheCat 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've demonstrated in the past that you disagree with the said policies, and you ignore them in your edits. — Instantnood 21:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to withdraw this nomination now that Instantnood has changed Category:Taiwanese media to a subcategory of the Republic of China category; my issue was primarily that they were originally categorized as two separate subcategories of Category:Media by country. Bearcat 05:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the thorough reconsideration. — Instantnood 21:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Category:Logos of Massachusetts state universities[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Seals and logos of Massachusetts state universities. Conscious 13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's in the category; old name is misleading. NawlinWiki 18:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:West Vancouver to Category:Images of West Vancouver[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All items in the category are images; already a category "West Vancouver, British Columbia". NawlinWiki 18:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Soviet military aircraft to Category:Soviet and Russian military aircraft[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy merged. - TexasAndroid 13:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

For consistency with other "Soviet and Russian" categories; right now the subcats by decade are randomly in both categories. NawlinWiki 18:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this should be speedied - it was deleted a couple of days ago see here. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy merge as per BL and previous vote. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mayors by country[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to "Mayors of places in ..." for countries and "Mayors of ..." for cities. Conscious 13:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The position of mayor is one of political office. Political office holder categories on Wikipedia are named with the "by country" convention, such as Category:Government ministers of Australia, Category:Prime Ministers of Bahrain, and Category:Presidents of Bolivia. The following mayors by nationality categories should be renamed to mayors by country wordings, as per consistency, and also because by nationality is fraught with problems of interpertations for political office-holders, such as for example "Mexican" mayors of cities in the United States. A by country wording would avoid such potential problems entirely.

--Kurieeto 17:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Note: "of" options striked out June 25. Kurieeto 13:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • First time I had an edit conflict nominating the same umbrella topic! Rename 'in' is probably better here but the subcats should remain 'of' since they are mayors 'of' some place. Vegaswikian 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using in. Unlike the presidents these people didn't govern the whole of their country, so the convention should not be the same. Chicheley 18:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current naming, consistent with current convention and most current category names. As mayor is also an occupation, it's consistent with most professional categories. Keep the "of" version for cities (e.g. Category:Mayors of Ottawa). -- User:Docu
Comment I believe Category:Politicians by country is the occupation, Mayor is the political office in this case. Kurieeto 13:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:User articles to be expanded[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, we don't do user cats -- ProveIt (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. useless cat. --Musicpvm 18:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename per below as something for users to keep in their userspace. David Kernow 01:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC), amended 11:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so users could help in editing sub-pages of other users. Emir214 05:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or rename, already did that, can't redirect though. -Emir214 08:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:LSD Users[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete again! --William Allen Simpson 07:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, we deleted this before. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Mississauga buildings[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 13:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Buildings and structures in Mississauga. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:House, M.D. and Category:House (TV show)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:House (TV series). Conscious 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:House (TV series), to match House (TV series). -- ProveIt (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Carey Alumni to Category:Carey Baptist Grammar School alumni[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using full name... -- ProveIt (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:FIFA World Cup 2010 to Category:2010 FIFA World Cup[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match other members of Category:FIFA World Cup tournaments. -- ProveIt (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Longevity myths to Category:Longevity claims[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 13:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Longevity myths is effectively a duplicate of the larger [Category:Longevity claims]. While it is a safe bet that most of the ages claimed are false, "myths" takes a stance on the matter, and therefore breaches the neutral point of view policy. "Claim" merely observes that a claim has been made, leaving it to the reader to assess its validity as discussed by the article.Chicheley 10:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

Category:Cricket grounds to Category:Cricket venues[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. Conscious 13:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In cricket, "ground" is often part of the name of a venue and so is an alternative to "stadium" or "paddock" or similar. "Venue" is a generic term and so more appropriate in this context. --Jack 09:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Cricket ground is the standard term. The ratio of google hits is 166:1. (Please don't bother to claim that google hits don't mean anything. They are entirely relevant in simple clear-cut cases and I am merely offering the stat as a straightforward and available piece of evidence for something which I already knew to be true.) Chicheley 10:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Chicheley Athenaeum 11:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Rename. For a start, Chicheley is trying to make a name for himself by carpet-bombing this deletion project and I suspect his agenda is around opposing anything that might just help Wikipedia's readers, as this suggestion would. As for quoting Google, he really cannot be taken seriously at all. It is a fact that venue as the generic term is the correct one to use in this context, as Jack says. Surely this is a matter for the Category:WikiProject Cricket Members to determine anyway and not the deletion page's resident pedants who add no value whatsoever. --GeorgeWilliams 11:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please make some effort to be courteous, it isn't that hard. Chicheley 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Rename I cannot believe anyone would quote Google stats and expect to be taken seriously. The use of Ground in cricket is very often specific: i.e., Lord's Cricket Ground, Melbourne cricket Ground or Sydney Cricket Ground. But other venues are called Stadium: e.g., Headingley Stadium. Logically, therefore, the generic term venue is more appropriate for the category. --Jack 14:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CFD is not a vote. You made the nomination, you don't need to "vote" again. BoojiBoy 16:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The generic term is "cricket ground" as you must know if you know anything much about cricket. The relevant section of cricinfo is called grounds ("cricket" being redundant in the context of a cricket only site) and the article cricket uses ground eight times in this sense, but the word venue(s) does not occur in it even once. Chicheley 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination What's the point? I'm simply trying to improve the cricket project and it really doesn't matter if it's called a ground or a venue or a stadium or a paddock. --Jack 17:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does matter that we get things right, but they are right already. Chicheley 18:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name is correct. Casper Claiborne 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Casper. -- I@n ≡ talk 12:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Consensus in WikiProject Cricket is that "grounds" is preferred to "venues" and I accept the consensus of project members who are acting positively in the best interests of the project and the readers. --Jack 06:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cricket media to Category:Cricket in the media[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existing title is misleading. A comment was made to me that it suggests cricket being used as a media instead of by the media. The proposed new name will make it clear. --Jack 09:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It isn't misleading and it matches the categories for other sports and I believe it is normal usage. The alternative is worse as it seems to suggest that the category could contain articles about any aspect of cricket covered by the media, as opposed to... well cricket media, as in media about cricket. Chicheley 10:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Didn't you suspect that the person who made that comment might be pulling your leg? Athenaeum 11:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • GROW UP! --Jack 14:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Rename Don't you suspect that you cannot speak English properly? The term is ambiguous. The suggested alternative makes sense. Having said that, I have seen category:Sports media in which there appears to be a convention to use sportsname media but that doesn't mean the suggestion is wrong. The only thing that is wrong are comedians who think they are clever when in fact they are acting like something in a school playground (i.e., being sarcastic). --GeorgeWilliams 11:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination I didn't know until I read George's point above that the items in category:Sports media follow a convention. I would still like to ask why Athenaeum couldn't simply point out something like that without trying to be clever? --Jack 14:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chicheley had already pointed that out before Athenaeums comment, so the blame is more with your eyesight than with Athenaeum. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh! Another "clever" inhabitant of the deletion section, obviously. --Jack 04:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The suggestion made is an improvement. -- I@n ≡ talk 12:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposal is not an improvement and the nominator has withdrawn it. Osomec 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Osomec.--M@rēino 20:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Osomec, and nominator would be well advised to read WP:CIVIL. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cricket dismissals[edit]

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

The result of the debate was already deleted, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 28. Conscious 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emptied category which has had its articles more relevantly redeployed else where. In particular, all the articles breached WP rule re parent and child categorisation. --Jack 09:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and repopulate. There is no such rule (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, though even if it did say what you incorrectly claim it says, it would not be mandatory as it is only a guideline). On the other hand you have breached etiquette by emptying the category before bringing it here. Chicheley 10:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chicheley if repopulated before closure. Athenaeum 11:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and leave the articles in the categories where they now are. Once again, a pair of deletion project pedants with no interest in the subject being improved for the benefit of the readers. The category was emptied because it was not adding value and every article that was in it exists in at least TWO other categories where it is both relevant and useful. There has not been any breach of etiquette. Jack has made perfectly clear what he is doing in the cricket project discussion pages (see the portal, the wikiproject and the cricket category talk pages) and this category was emptied in the course of his improvements which are being done for the benefit of the readership, not to give the afore-mentioned pedants something to whinge about. As for there being "no rule", I myself have seen a WP rule or guideline or whatever which states that an article should not be in both parent and child categories, apart from certain exceptions. But there has been no exception here: only unnecessary duplication. --GeorgeWilliams 11:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is irrelevant if the WP statement is a guideline or a rule. It should be followed anyway. In this case, the child category was redundant because it had been added to the parent which already contained all of the child's articles. Once again, decategorisation was done in good faith with support from project members and no opposition from project members. --Jack 14:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CFD is not a vote, you don't need to "vote" twice. BoojiBoy 16:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, thanks. I've amended the above entry as a comment rather than a vote. Not familiar with this procedure and I'll steer clear of it in future. Never seen anything so negative. --Jack 17:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do come back here if you wish to delete or rename any categories in future. The fact that you aren't getting your way doesn't make the process "negative". Please scroll down and see if other people behave this way when their ideas don't meet with universal approval. Chicheley 18:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The process is negative because it is convoluted, bureaucratic and works against progress. If you think I do not accept consensus, read the cricket project discussion pages and see how I take into account the views of my fellow members who all have a positive interest in advancing the project for the benefit of the readers. Not something that occurs to those who inhabit this section and seek to delete perfectly good articles on the slightest pretext. --Jack 04:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I@n ≡ talk 12:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Dance artists by country to Category:Dance musicians by country or Category:Dance musicians by nationality[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Dance musicians by nationality. I can't see any reason not to do the subcategory renames suggested either, as currently they are a mess. the wub "?!" 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although an empty Category:Dance/Club music artists has recently been created (musicians is better than music artists). There are also a number of sub-categories that will require renaming. There is potential for confusion with dancing related performers. Paul foord 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Musicpvm 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relisted from June 16 for more discussion. Tim! 09:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Category:One-day International cricket to Category:One-day international cricket[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 15:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing nomination suggested by User:BlackJack at 07:26, 24 June (UTC). However, I disagree with the suggestion: One-day International is officially spelled as two capitalised words, so the category should stay where it is. Sam Vimes 08:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One-day International in the context of a specific match is a noun and I agree with using the upper case in that sense. In this context of the category's title, where it is describing a generic type of cricket, it is adjectival and so should comply with WP naming convention. --Jack 09:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It isn't adjectival as it only refers to official matches sanctioned by the ICC, not to unofficial matches played by national teams. Chicheley 10:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sam Vimes and Chicheley Athenaeum 11:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Rename Chicheley needs to get his facts right and, if he was actually a member of WikiProject Cricket and had a genuine interest in the subject, he might eventually get something right. This category is about ALL one day international cricket and its scope goes beyond the ICC as it includes friendlies and charity events. The term is therefore adjectival and it should be amended to comply with WP naming convention. --GeorgeWilliams 11:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination as I'm really not bothered about this. I have better things to do. --Jack 14:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per established naming convention. -- I@n ≡ talk 11:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cricket teams[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 15:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emptied category that appears to be "redundant" according to User:BlackJack's nomination, which was not completed properly. I'm just completing the nomination, so no vote from me. Sam Vimes 08:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for oversight. The category is empty due to its handful of articles being more relevantly deployed under other categories and because it is unlikely, given the existence of the other categories, that this one will be subject to any worthwhile development. Therefore it is redundant and should be removed. --Jack 09:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was depopulated by Jack in advance of nomination, which is a breach of etiquette. I have started to repopulate it. It is difficult to accept that the claim that it contained only a "handful of articles" was made in good faith, when Jack knows perfectly well that he personally removed subcategories containing scores of articles from it. Chicheley 10:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of the comments above by Sam and myself, an accusation of bad faith is insulting. I suggest that this user needs to get things in context. --Jack 04:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This a subcategory I would expect Wikipedia to have. Athenaeum 11:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Neither Athenaeum nor Chicheley are interested in cricket and neither understands the process of improvement that is being carried out for the benefit of the readers. They are clearly out to interfere in every topic on this deletion page and it is difficult to understand their exact agenda. There has been no breach of etiquette, which is ludicrous claim, as Jack has made clear what he is doing on the cricket category, portal and WikiProject discussion pages. The articles have not been removed either. They are already deployed on more relevant and useful categories elsewhere and this teams category was not helping the project. I would have thought Jack's explanation above has made clear that his process will improve the cricket project but evidently the deletion page residents know more about it than he does.

I would hace thought that before Chicheley starts to repopulate a project's categories, he should be a member of that project and have an active knowledge of and genuine interest in it. That is a breach of etiquette. --GeorgeWilliams 12:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wikipedia content does not belong to any individual user or group of users and anyone is entitled to contribute to any part of Wikipedia they wish. Chicheley 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe category was depopulated because none of the articles or sub-categories were appropriate to it. I started recategorising a few of them and then found that the whole lot needed doing. So when Chicheley, who has no interest in the cricket project, starts talking rubbish about etiquette he doesn't know what he is on about. He is a pedantic troublemaker who is trying to prevent improvement of the cricket project for the benefit of its readers. The proposals for changing the cricket categories are on the appropriate discussion pages and are being discussed. So far, the response from the people who are actually interested in cricket has been positive, though clearly these people are not as clever as Chicheley or his sarcastic (i.e., infantile) sidekick Athenaeum who are clearly the sort of people who know everything and understand nothing. Chicheley says I have breached etiquette but what he has done is vandalism. He has undone the work of a project member who was acting in good faith with some support and no opposition from other project members because he knows nmore about our project than we do. Frankly, people like that are the bane of Wikipedia. --Jack 13:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try to rely on reason rather than insults. I am a county member and I have been to test cricket every year for the last 25 years, but if I can expect to encounter this sort of behaviour on WikiProject Cricket it would be foolish to join it as I do not wish to waste my time having rows. Chicheley 16:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also am a county member and I have just joined Wiki Cricket because it is doing excellent work that I have enjoyed reading for a few years now. I have been reading this debate and it would be as well if you did not join the project as you are clearly a very negative person indeed. The reason why a row has erupted here is because you have first accused Black Jack of acting in bad faith and then of breaching etiquette. It is plain to see that he has done neither and he has been right to defend himself. I think you should apologise to him. --AlbertMW 06:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jack re-emptied it and stated in each of his edit summaries that my repopulation of it was vandalism. Chicheley 16:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no vote from me as I know nothing about cricket, but depopulating categories in advance of listing at CFD, then using "empty" as a rationale for deletion is highly unacceptable and a gigantic breach of protocol. I would appreciate it if someone could restore the categories to their previous populated state so that we might be able to judge the categories on their own merits. BoojiBoy 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps people who create these negative procedures should make sure they are clearly explained so that they are easy to use by people who haven't time to sit and read through page after page of convoluted jargon. I am trying to improve a project for the benefit of its readers. In doing so , I found that a category was superfluous and I ended up by emptying it. I was then advised that i should submit the empty category to this procedure rather than wait for a housekeeping procedure to tidy it up. I have NOT breached anything. I am simply trying to be a positive contributer to the cricket project. I will repopulate the cricket teams category and I will then withdraw from this site, which is frankly a waste of my valuable time. --Jack 18:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being. Cricket categories need a major housekeep, but this is not the way to do it. -- I@n ≡ talk 12:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a category that should exist.--Runcorn 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States media to Category:American media[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename consistent with past decisions and parent Category:Media by country. the wub "?!" 15:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took me three attempts to find this. It doesn't match up with category:American culture. Chicheley 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

relisted from June 15 for more opinions. Tim! 08:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • American is fine (no, we don't need to worry about "Patagonians have a claim too" - its perfectly good English to use "American" to describe the United States: you hardly hear Billy Graham being called a "United States preacher", he's an "American preacher") but the question is whether this should really use the adjectival form at all. Since it is a cultural category, I'd run with the usual adjectival form of "American". If it has to be "United States", then please let it be "of the United States". (Sidenote: one especially does not hear of "The famous preacher of the United States, Billy Graham"). TheGrappler 09:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:American media. American is fine for other United States categories and it is fine here. Athenaeum 11:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:American media. I don't wish to claim American-ness for Canada, and I don't see why Mexicans, Columbians, etc. should wish to do so. In any case it is well known that in English "American" usually means "of the United States". Cloachland 11:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; the use of "American" in category names is already a settled policy matter, so unless you're proposing that we reopen it yet again, laid is played. The naming convention that would apply to this is defined by the media parent, not by the national culture parent, but at least in this case the media parent would also support the proposed new name. Bearcat 18:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; "United States x" or "x of/in the United States" is generally a better choice. -- User:Docu
    • "Generally a better choice" does not trump a policy that's been debated and settled. And, for what it's worth, "United States X" is completely ungrammatical nonsense. Bearcat 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect whichever one is NOT kept, per David Kernow. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, no. If anything, Rename to Category:Media in the United States or Category:Media of the United States; the nominated category already has sub-categories like Category:Foreign-language media in the United States, Category:Media companies of the United States, and so on. This is, quite simply, more accurate than saying "American", which some people (especially outside of the Americas) use to refer to the entire continent. I've had Europeans tell me (a Canadian) that I'm an "American". Believe me, that goes down about as well as telling a Catalonian that they are Spanish. Not good. Let's avoid geopolitical issues like this and aim for precision instead. Warrens 17:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was probably just because of your accent. Chicheley 20:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename category:American media. These categories use the adjective form and it is very well established that we use "American" for the U.S. Osomec 17:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename category:American media for consistency. Golfcam 11:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Docu. -Lady Aleena @ 07:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:American media is correct and consistent. Sumahoy 22:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Honbicot 07:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and create redirect.--Runcorn 19:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a good idea. Way too much of the TV in Australia comes from America, but no-one says "there's too much United States television on in Australia". Ramseystreet 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Marketing Agencies of the United States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 07:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See two listed below. TheGrappler 06:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Speakers Bureau[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 07:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more yucky spam-catting from the person who has brought us Online Advertising and Motivational Speakers of the United States and a host of inappropriate promotional link-spamming and ad-"articles". TheGrappler 05:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Chicheley 05:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CalJW 07:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Name doesn't seem to identify a category, spam or no spam. David Kernow 11:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. More blatant spam. -- Alias Flood 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete--Runcorn 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Motivational Speakers of the United States[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 07:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More spam-catting from the person who brought us Online Adverising (see below). Let's just be rid of it. TheGrappler 05:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:dc Talk songs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 07:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one available link.--Later!!! Chili14 (Talk) 05:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. CalJW 07:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Runcorn 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Latino-based organizations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Relisted --William Allen Simpson 07:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on talk.--Rockero 03:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It hasn't reached a consensus, so what are you actually proposing? Athenaeum 11:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Desktop-Search[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 07:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:Desktop search engines, which is better populated, has been around longer, and contains the same stuff. Warrens 01:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_24&oldid=1136104407"