Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 6 November 8 >

November 7[edit]

Category:Bosnian emigrants[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bosnian emigrants to Category:People of Bosnian descent

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 section.

Category:Uncertain stars[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Hypothetical stars, found lurking. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and keep as a redirect Piccadilly 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this for celebrities who need psychological counseling? If not, Delete/merge. >Radiant< 09:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - jc37 02:34, 10 November 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 section.

Category:Health Club[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Health clubs, per naming conventions. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and keep as a redirect
  • Speedy, plural. >Radiant< 09:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was already done before ProveIt posted this, however he reverted it. See the history of the article. Also, there was nothing to merge as a rename proposal was originally proposed. I will revert ProveIt's change as had originally been proposed. --Maniwar (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirection doesn't work very well for categories ... the cfm is the right way to do it. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Although I don't understand and am new, I do support. --Maniwar (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category names are usually plural. Unless a proper noun, any word after the first is in lowercase. Vegaswikian 18:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the light dawns...thanks for the education. ----Maniwar (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge per nom. - jc37 02:34, 10 November 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 section.

Category:Defunct Egyptian Airlines[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Defunct airlines of Egypt, convention of Category:Defunct airlines. -- ProveIt (talk) 20:43, 7 November 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 section.

Category:Wars of the NATO[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wars of the NATO to Category:Wars of NATO

  • Rename, Unless "NATO" is spelled out as North Atlantic Treaty Organization, "the" is not placed before it. It looks and sounds awkward, despite the inevitable arguments of grammatical accuracy. Compare Secretary General of NATO (not "of the NATO"), Category:Military facilities of NATO and Category:Military ranks of NATO. LordAmeth 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, so we have one structure. When does NATO itself use "the" as article? Wandalstouring 20:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per above arguments. As it is now it sounds and looks as ridiculous as saying "The Ohio State University." (A shout out to OSU: let it go and try to be normal for once.) Whether it's official or not, no one on earth says it and as I understand it, unless there is earth-stopping confusion, the more common names of things are to be used on Wikipedia. --ScreaminEagle 22:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wars involving NATO...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wars of ..." is the convention for all the other war categories. Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah... Well, "Wars of NATO" strikes me as slightly odd – probably because (1) NATO isn't a country; and (2) it hasn't been responsible for any wars (so far as I'm aware) – but if that's the convention... unless an exception / different convention (such as "involving") made for such organiz/sations...?  Regards, David (talk) 06:47, 9 November 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 section.

Category:Programs broadcast by YTV[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:YTV shows. YTV appears to be one channel only, and none of the other members of Category:Television series by network disambiguate. the wub "?!" 11:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:YTV shows or Category:YTV network shows, convention of Category:Television series by network. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:24, 7 November 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 section.

Category:Dominican Honours System[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dominican Honours System to Category:Honours system of the Dominican Republic

  • Rename, The capitalisation of the current category name is incorrect and the new name needs to make it clear that the category is for the Dominican Republic rather than the separate nation of Dominica. Nonomy 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - jc37 02:34, 10 November 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 section.

Category:Alumni of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alumni of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne to Category:Alumni of Newcastle University

  • Rename per nom. Merchbow 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as the creator of the orignal page, per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 19:27, 11 November 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 section.

Category:People from Tottenham[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 10:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Tottenham to Category:People from Haringey

  • Rename, This catergory is only populated by one it should be expanded to include the whole of the London Borough of Haringey. Jt spratt 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are a good number of other categories for districts (often formerly towns) in London that are not boroughs. The boroughs are recent artificial constructs, and Londoners identify with their district much more than with their borough. Piccadilly 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tottenham is a well known area, and my experience is that Londoners are more like;y to say they live in an area (such as Tottenham, or Highgate or Wood Green) than in a borough, such as Haringey. The category is only two weeks old, so no surprise that it is lightly populated: i have now tagged it with {{popcat}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 10 November 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 section.

Polish families[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most family categories have names that make it clear what type of category they are, but the Polish ones just use the surname. They could easily be categories for places or almost anthing. I suggest adding the word family to all the following:

The following three are royal dynasties, and categories for European royal families usually take the form "House of X". You can see that two of them already take a different form from the categories listed above:

I will tag all the categories late tonight when the server response time should be better. Landolitan 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. >Radiant< 09:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Nonomy 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like a good idea to be as consistent as we can. In case it is important, I'd like to note that those families are all nobility.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. This seems sensible, but I don't like runnoing off first instinct like this, and I'd be happier if there was a guideline to help, because I know nothing about how these categories are usually handled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 10 November 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 section.

Category:Clarinet music[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clarinet music into Category:Compositions for clarinet

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 section.

Category:People by Astrological Sign[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 section.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as recreation contra CFD precedent. Postdlf 00:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Rename to Category:People by astrological sign. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:36, 7 November 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 section.

Category:Non-African American inventors[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non-African American inventors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Waaaaay too broad scope. Pegship 12:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm going to presume this is a retaliation against Category:African American inventors. A stupid one though as a person can CfD that if it offends them or create other ethnicity sub-cats if necessary.--T. Anthony 13:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may have presumed wrong. The creator of this category is apparently a Dutch math guy into humor. So this might just be a joke of some kind. Either way it's unnecessary--T. Anthony 13:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The creator was just going down the list at Special:Wantedcategories and creating them, apparently without checking deletion logs.Pegship 17:31, 7 November 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 section.

Films by Title[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by Title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ambiguously named, incorrect case, and it contains one sub-cat which is also up for deletion (see below). Pegship 11:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, recreation. >Radiant< 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No use for such category. Prolog 14:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This offers no value. Landolitan 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Waiting for: Films with "The" in the title : ) - jc37 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Deleted several times for obvious reasons. Put a lock on the page or something. Pavel Vozenilek 22:35, 11 November 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 section.

Films with'From Outer Space' in the title[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by Title (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
More appropriate as a list; could set a frightening precedent. Parent cat is also up for deletion. Pegship 11:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Piccadilly 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Prolog 14:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This would be better as a part of a "Outer Space"-themed list/category. categorising on just the incidence of those words seems like a bad idea. - jc37 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this trivia. Doczilla 07:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivia. Pity it can't be speedied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 10 November 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 section.

Category:Author templates[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Author templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Empty, and redundant to Category:Author navigational boxes. Pegship 11:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - per nom. - jc37 02:34, 10 November 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 section.

Category:Treasurer[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Treasurer to Category:Grand Treasurers of the Kingdom of Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

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 section.

Category:British American numismatics[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Upmerge to Numismatics --Kbdank71 17:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British American numismatics into Category:Canadian numismatics

  • Merge, Categories overlap - no need. I have no preference which way the merger takes place Ian Cairns 08:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? When did British Americans become Canadians? - EurekaLott 16:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge National categories are very often taken to cover predecessor states. Cloachland 02:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2 categories at present each contain the same 3 pages. However British American and Canadian are quite different and there ought to be no overlap at all. Numismatics of North America? Delete both? roundhouse 10:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:numismatics. All the by-nationality subcats of Category:numismatics are very sparsely populated, and all seem to have definitional problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 10 November 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 section.

Category:Airlines of Australasia and the Pacific[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airlines of Australasia and the Pacific to Category:Airlines of Oceania

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 section.

Category:NASA people[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:NASA personnel. the wub "?!" 14:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NASA people to Category:NASA personnel and/or Category:People associated with NASA
Clarity; are/were these people employed by NASA ("personnel") and/or (merely) associated with it...?  David Kernow (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to either as nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "NASA personnel". I don't think there are any non-NASA employees on the list, and in any case, the second category is a very nebulous one. MLilburne 07:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "NASA personnel" as otherwise every politician who has played any role in U.S. spaceflight could potentially be included. Landolitan 20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to the former, and cleanup, removing any entries that would have solely belonged in the latter. - jc37 02:34, 10 November 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 section.

Category:Flight controllers[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 15:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flight controllers to Category:NASA flight controllers
To indicate which space agency involved (and to indicate that these are space flight controllers). David Kernow (talk) 04:07, 7 November 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 section.

Category:Religious leaders by nationality subcategories[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the other categories in Category:Religious leaders by nationality use Fooian religious leaders, and there's no apparent reason why these shouldn't. In any case, all the categories ought to use the same term, and 'religious figures' and 'people of religion' are both more ambigious about who exactly they refer to. Mairi 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am worried by this. Is everyone in a religious profession a religious leader? But alternatives like "Fooian religious workers" don't seem ideal either. Piccadilly 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Piccadilly, suggest "Xian religious figures" or "Religious figures of X" become the standard format. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As noted awhile back in a previous nom, I oppose the use of "figures", as ambigous, since it can refer to sculpture/statuary. (Religious figures could = Crèche/nativity scene.) I think that the "figures" categories should all be merged/renamed to the appropriate categories (people to people, leaders to leaders, associated to associated, etc). - jc37 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in many other categories, renaming is going on to eliminate adjective forms and here we are making the names into adjectives. What goes? Hmains 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Merchbow 09:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oppose"-As per Picadilly, not all are Religious leaders. Father Horacio de la Costa is famous Jesuit historian and university president but not was less involded with religous affairs. Perhaps renaming instead to religous workers or people would be appropriate.--Jondel 05:38, 12 November 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 section.

Category:Animated series needing more images[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of a category (especially since it's calling for more fair use images). Created by new user Comicfan (talk · contribs), and added to only two articles: A Pup Named Scooby-Doo and Dennis the Menace (US). --FuriousFreddy 01:56, 7 November 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 section.

'Horseracing' → 'Horse racing' cats[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with main article, parent and sibling categories. Alai 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. I'd like o see all the single-word subcategories change too.--Mike Selinker 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that: the "by country" subcats are named likewise, and as per Mike, should IMO be renamed, and there may be others lurking around too. Alai 06:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, systemic bias, Horseracing is an acceptable term and is the term used by the British Horseracing Board. Hiding Talk 19:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is not a British / U.S. English issue as the inconsistency is global. BHB may stand for British Horseracing Board, but their site uses "horse racing" more than once. "Horse racing" gets 1,940,000 UK google hits (the first 4 from the BBC, the two UK racing newspapers Sporting Life and The Racing Post, and the BHB itself) while "horseracing" gets only 377,000. It looks untidy for Wikipedia to be inconsistent. Piccadilly 01:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Untidy? Wikipedia. You surprise me. Yes, I appreciate both forms are used, but on Wikipedia we respect both forms. Or we used to. We allow alternate spellings, we allow non-conformity. Wikipedia is untidy, it uses British spelling, American spelling, there are no standards. If there is no standard, let's not enforce one. Let's avoid a POV here where possible. Hiding Talk 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it should be taken as a given that consistency is desirable. As you rightly say, inconsistency can be tolerated where it is necessary to respect national differences, but that is not the case here. The evidence is that the most common form is the same in both the U.S. and the UK and so far as I know around the world. Furthermore none of the nominated categories are for specific countries. Piccadilly 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appear to be flummoxed by the comments above that the "by country" subcats are named likewise, and as per Mike, should IMO be renamed. As to the consistency of Wikipedia and what is desirable, go build a consensus. Hiding Talk 14:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Piccadilly. Nonomy 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to two separate words, per nom. - jc37 02:34, 10 November 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 section.

Category:African American soldiers[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:African Americans in the United States Military --Kbdank71 17:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American soldiers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The term "soldiers" is too restrictive, as it excludes Navy, Air Force, and Marine personnel ... Category:Black history in the United States military is more inclusive, and already exists. 141.156.240.102 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does African American military personnel automatically imply United States military personnel or can their be African American military personnel who are not members of the United States military? --- Skapur 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think so since it's got "American" in the name of the category...I prefer "African American military personnel" since (1) "African Americans in the United States military" could be misunderstood to be any article/topic that deals with African Americans in the context of the US military, which would essentially be the same as the current Category:Black history in the United States military and (2) it parallels all the other African American career categories (actors, bishops, academics, etc).
It is long but I believe Category:African American personnel in the United States military will leave no doubt and will be a very specific category. It will eliminate issues when an African American temporarility or permanently migrates to another country and joins armed forces there as a soldier with a country, as a militant or as a mercenery. The French Foreign legion accepted African Americans as soldiers in desegregated companies before the US did! Eugene Bullard was the first African American military pilot but not in the United States. --- Skapur 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query does African-American get a hyphen? >Radiant< 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would believe so. The trouble with google in this case, is that we're relying on bloggers and journalists (and their editors, if existant). But I believe the usage is African-American, comparable to Irish-American or Indian-American. Native Americans use a different convention (since the word "native" isn't a country). - jc37 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to 'African Americans in the military'. This has precedent in 'Jewish Americans in the military', which I created and has lasted awhile. Hmains 03:52, 10 November 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 section.

Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament (2)[edit]

This CFD relates to the subcategories by nation and replaces an earlier CFD at WP:CFD#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Irish_constituencies_.281801-1922.29

It is one of two proposals which were originally made by me on 4 November 2006 at Category_talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring. I had hoped to leave that discussion to run for longer, in order to involve more people in exploring the issues, before hopefully reaching some sort of consensus on a proposal or set of proposals to bring to CFD.

However, the CFD above by Smerus brought the issue to a head more quickly, with a different proposal. Rather than have to separate CFDs relating to the same categories, it seemed better to start a new CFD, and Smerus has kindly agreed to withdraw the existing nomination to allow a new one to proceed.

The background to both these nominations is that all MPs elected to Westminster were originally categorised under the single Category:British MPs. This was both unwieldy and innacurate, because there have been three parliaments at Westminster:

Despite continuities of procedure and membership etc, these are legally separate institutions. So Westminster MPs are now categorised according to which parliament they are (or were) members of:

This CFD relates solely to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, i.e. MPs since 1801.

National sub-categories of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was duplicate of competing nomination. --Kbdank71 12:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two proposals for renaming these categories:

Proposal 1[edit]

There are two reasons for this proposal:

  1. the existing category names are descriptive, but are simply too long: this change shortens them by 35 characters. A significant number of MPs (particularly in the nineteenth century) have represented constituencies in more than one nation of the United Kingdom, with the result that several lines of the category box are taken up with the categories. Every article on a MP should use the term "Member of Parliament" (MP) to explain the abbreviation (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)), so the term abbreviation MP should be explained to a user who reads the categories. The abbreviation UK may be less familiar, but is widely used, and the unabbreviated term is used in the relevant category pages.
  2. it replaces the "from xxxxish constituencies" with "for xxxxish constituencies": the word "from" could mean that an MP was born there, but "for" makes it clearer that they were elected to represent the constituency, even though they may be "from" somewhere else (such as Michael Heseltine: he was born in Swansea, so is from a Welsh constituency, but was an MP for English constituencies).

This format follows the convention used in the subcategories of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament, e.g. Category:UK MPs 1997-2001, which was arrived at after ojections at CFD to length of the previous names for those categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2[edit]

I have not written an explanation of this proposal, because it was advanced by User:Smerus in another CFD which he/she has kindly agreed to withdraw to allow a unified discussion. I have invited Smerus to wrire an appropriate explanation here, so please hold off commenting until that explanation is in place (Smerus, I presume you will want to delete this paragraph and replace it with your own). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pending any further explanation from Smerus, I have reposted the following from Smerus from the earlier CFD: --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename in the interests of clarity; the proposed title reflects the apparent intention of the category. Many of the MPs listed here are not from English consituencies in their origins (for example Tony Blair , who is 'from' Scotland) but they do 'represent' English consituencies. An alternative renaming, which I personally would prefer, would be Category:Members of the House of Commons representing English constituencies- as members of the other house of Parliament, the Lords, do not represent consituencies in any case. --Smerus 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment JC37, when informed about the previous discussion, the nominator (Smerus) kindly agreed to withdraw the earlier CFD if a joint proposal was made. That is why this CFD has been created.
    You are of course fully entitled to oppose the use of the term MPs in the category name, but it seems to be to be most unfortunate for a CFD to be launched which does not offer from the outset of the options which have achievced support an earlier discussion. I am pleased that Smerus agreed that it would be better to consider both options together, and I do not think that it is at all helpful to suggest that they be considered separately.
    Please see my comments at User_talk:Jc37#MP_categories about your nomination of the other categories without offering the option which you already knew had achieved support at Renaming subcategories after restructuring. I feel that the effect of this omission of the supported option was to impede efforts to reach a proper consensus, and since I assume that you acted in good faith, I hope that you will agree to my suggestion of withdrawing those nominations to allow a discussion which considers all the options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal 1 - As it is shortest form available, I'm not worried about the abbrievation MP as it is clear from the context constituency what the category means, and it should be clear from the article that the subject is a politican. Catchpole 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My brain hurts. David Kernow (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose #1, do not use abbrev. No opinion on #2. >Radiant< 09:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1, please use abbrev. Oppose #2. roundhouse 13:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1. Oppose #2. - Kittybrewster 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is way to complicated. Please list each issue completely separately in future. Piccadilly 17:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #2 as the existing names are not strictly accurate. Piccadilly 17:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1 includes changing 'from' (inaccurate) to 'for'; I support 'for' rather than 'representing' as it is shorter. roundhouse 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 2 as it is not technically correct. The Queen is a member of parliament but she is not an MP. Members of the house of Lords are members of Parliament but are never MPs. Support option 1, in this case the term MP actually exists as a separate term rather than an abbreviation. Hiding Talk 20:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1, shorter and more accurate. Support #2 if #1 is not implemented. Warofdreams talk 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1; Oppose 2. Why not use abbreviation ? Representing and for mean the same here, and for is much shorter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1; Oppose 2. I daresay any user interested in browsing the category will know what the abbreviations means. As a frequent creator of MP stubs, I can testify that it's quite painful to remember the exact phrasing of the present names (for? from? United Kingdom Parliament or Parliament of the United Kingdom?) and shorter names would be much easier to use. While I respect the desire for precision of phrasing, we have article space to explain exactly what Members of Parliament are and do; I don't think we need to carry that strictness into category space, provided the categories are unambiguous. Choess 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1; Oppose #2 per User:Catchpole ~~ Phoe talk 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
  • Support #1; Oppose #2, I think this is a rare occasion where using the abbreviations is better. the wub "?!" 16:52, 10 November 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 section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_7&oldid=1136103946"