Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 28

< June 27	June 29 >

June 28[edit]

Category:Journalists killed in Vietnam[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Journalists killed while covering the Vietnam War. the wub "?!" 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Journalists killed in Vietnam to Category:Journalists killed in the Vietnam War

Nominator's rationale: Rename, more accurate title, as this cat is a sub-cat of Category:People of the Vietnam War and all people in it were killed in the Vietnam War. jwillbur 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 01:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cloachland 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Journalists killed while covering the Vietnam War. I note that someone has emptied the category in question anyway but if renamed per nom, we need to prune any journalists who weren't precisely killed in the Vietnam War, like Philippa Schuyler, drowned after her helicopter carrying civilians and orphans crashed - board of inquiry blamed pilot error not hostile (or friendly) fire (She died in Vietnam, or more accurately off its coast, and while covering the Vietnam War, but she was not killed in the Vietnam War) - and Dana Stone who died in Cambodia, according to our article nomenclature in the Cambodian Civil War, not the Vietnam War, but she was covering the Vietnam War (hence a rename along those lines). This expansive reading of "killed in" that gets these 2 in to , would be similar to claims that George Patton and Hideki Tojo were killed in World War II. Carlossuarez46 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Journalists killed covering the Vietnam War. The suggested title in the nom seems rather unspecific. This option seems to be the shortest that clearly defines what the category seems to be about. Seeing the name, the topic should be clear. Vegaswikian 23:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Journalists killed covering the Vietnam War per Vegaswikian Greg Grahame 14:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Unused 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unused category. Was associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Unused templates, which is now inactive. Delete. Mike Peel 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment cat was originally tagged for speedy deletion by Mike Peel but I'd rather go through CfD just to make sure nobody's using this cat. On the other hand, Mike is pretty active at TfD so he's in a pretty good position to know whether or not this category is being used at all. Pascal.Tesson 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 16:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rail accidents in London[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rail accidents in London to Category:Railway accidents in London

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match parent and other related categories. Greg Grahame 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 18:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Lugnuts 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention of Category:Railway accidents by country and its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod 01:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cloachland 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historical women who lived as male[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 17:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical women who lived as male. Does wearing pants mean they lived their lives as a man? delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, especially the military ones, yes. Maybe tighten criteria, but keep. Johnbod 17:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly an encyclopedic article can be written about women who passed as men. Otto4711 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto4711. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Otto. Women who lived passing themselves as men -- that's defining. Doczilla 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, Rename to either Category:Historical women who lived as men or Category:Historical females who lived as males. Do we really need the historical in the name? Vegaswikian 02:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The division between "living as a male" and either temporarily claiming to be a male (e.g. Willa Cather) or simply using a male alias in some situations (e.g. George Eliot) is too gray. Hence, I recommend deleting this category because the inclusion critera are poorly defined. However, an article on the subject would be more useful. Dr. Submillimeter 08:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If kept, then remove the word "historical" as subjective and poorly-defined. (Does "historical" just mean "notable and dead" in this case?) Dr. Submillimeter 08:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Submilli Bulldog123 12:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto. Carlossuarez46 21:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsensical name, lists persons who wore male's clothing for wide range of reasons, including ceremonial, absurd parent cat. Pavel Vozenilek 21:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no ambiguity. Either a woman systematically passed herself off as a man for part of her life or she didn't. It is hardly a project in which there is room for half-measures or prevarication. And for those women that did so pass themselves off, this is an essential category. Indeed it is likely to represent the main reason why they have an article. It could be renamed to Category:Women who lived as a man. OrchWyn 03:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mobb Deep[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization, part of the Category:G-Unit walled garden. Category not needed for this material. Otto4711 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of the Maghreb/Category:History of North Africa[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:History of North Africa. the wub "?!" 17:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The categories cover the same material. Generally the terms "Maghreb" and North Africa are synonomous. While some people could argue that North Africa is actually are larger area (including Egypt, Sudan, Mauritania, etc.) historically speaking, it means Morroco, Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia. Egypt and Sudan are more closely related to the Mashriq (at least in the Islamic period) or independent from the rest of North Africa. I guess Mauritani history could be included under the Maghreb or North Africa, but it is also closely related to West Africa.

comment I can see a merge is needed, but I'm not sure what name you are proposing - North Africa? Johnbod 17:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
response That probably should be part of the debate. I think the term 'North Africa' is used more in the US and the category is more developed, but the term 'Maghreb' may be more common elsewhere.
"North Africa" seems used for the main articles, and is more generally understood by those unfamiliar with the area, so I would go with that for now. Merge to :Category:History of North Africa. But I don't have a strong preference, except they should be merged. Johnbod 19:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mazaradi FOX songs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the only article is for a song that he guested on, not his own single. Additionally there is no lead article for Mazaradi FOX, as it has been speedy deleted several times (see also Mazaradi Fox) as spam. If he's not notable enough for a lead article then he shouldn't have an eponymous category. Otto4711 17:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Philadelphia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 17:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category for Philly inconsistent with rest of U.S. that stop at the state level. Category can be replaced by a Template for Philly schools. EagleFan 15:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The category is a logical subcategory of Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Pennsylvania. It is also a logical subcat of Category:High schools in Philadelphia. The category is a simpler solution than a template. ----evrik ^(talk) 15:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Pennsylvania is not big enough to need sub-catrgorisation, so there is no need to breach the conventon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the creator of most of the state categories, I can tell you, there is no convention. ----evrik ^(talk) 20:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per evrik. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge There is a convention, one category per state, except Philly and New Orleans, I believe. Keeping Philly is a bad precedent. Perhaps rename the category as a sub/part of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Template work just fine and can be set up for the whole Catholic League, including schools in the 'burbs. EagleFan 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Voting 2 x? In any case, there is no such convention. In fact, the city sub-cats could be expanded to any city that has a large Catholic population. Say for example, Category:Roman Catholic high schools in New Orleans or Roman Catholic secondary schools in Los Angeles County. That's three states for anyone that's counting. --evrik ^(talk) 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough articles have been written on Roman Catholic secondary schools that it is probably worth dividing them at the city level. Moreover, high schools in general are also divided by city in the United States, so having a separate categories for different types of schools at the city level would be appropriate. Furthermore, the category contains quite a few schools, so it is hardly underpopulated. Dr. Submillimeter 16:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful as an intersection, eg it keeps articles out of the diocesan category. AshbyJnr 16:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Piano trios[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Piano trios to Category:Compositions for piano trio

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with other subcats of Category:Chamber music compositions. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Bencherlite 13:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod 14:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hollywood films about Chinese people[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Hollywood films about Chinese people to Category:Asian American films

Nominator's rationale: Merge - redundant. Otto4711 13:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not really mergeable, but it's certainly deleteable. Category:Asian American films is about films directed by Asian Americans. Category:Hollywood films about Chinese people is apparently a category for the nebulous, broad, not really defined class of "Hollywood films," whatever they are, that are in some sense "about Chinese people," whatever that means. zadignose 14:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge applicatable films to noms category (which seems to fit 90% of the article). Consider creating Category:Films set in China for the rest? CitiCat 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Zadignose and I'll repeat my mantra about "about", how "about Chinese people" does a film have to be? And if one really wants to get picky is "people" being (mis)used as "persons" or are we really talking about something else? And merge, if anything really tied these films together in a definable objective way, is not possible as nominated per Zadignose. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no objection to deletion. Otto4711 04:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Religion in Burlington, Vermont[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 17:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Religion in Vermont, no members, just a single item subcat. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's already there, and probably doesn't even need to be.{[unsigned}}
Merge per nom. Overcategorization. Trivial intersection of variables. Doczilla 08:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christianity in Burlington, Vermont[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 17:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Christianity in Vermont, single item category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Pretty clearly an unnecessary category. CitiCat 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Overcategorization. Trivial intersection of variables. Doczilla 08:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National treasures of North Korea[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:National treasures of North Korea to Category:National Treasures of North Korea

Category:National treasures of Korea to Category:National Treasures of South Korea

Category:Living National Treasures (Japan) to Category:Living National Treasures of Japan

Category:National treasures of Japan to Category:National Treasures of Japan

Category:National treasures to Category:National Treasures

Nominator's rationale: Rename, To match the article titles and the official titles in South Korea and Japan. --kingboyk 12:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are these official government designations? Is that part of the reason why the terms should be capitalized? Dr. Submillimeter 13:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's exactly right. In the cases of Japan ("The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of the government of Japan designates the most famous of the nation's cultural properties as National Treasures (国宝: kokuhō)") and South Korea (government site, using capitalisation) they are official. The North Korea article is unreferenced and I've been unable to determine whether it's official or not. With regards to the parent category, that probably does contain unofficial "national treasures" but it's my contention that it shouldn't, as unofficial national treasures are purely subjective. --kingboyk 13:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The same website cited above capitalizes "Memory of The World," and "Video Gallery." This is a common convention often used in titling, but it doesn't appear to be the Wikipedia convention. Also, the Korean and Japanese languages have no equivalent of capitalization, and I know of no standard rules for Romanizing or translating into foreign languages with capitals. zadignose 13:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. If this is an officially designated set of things the categories should be capitalised, and if it isn't they should be deleted for being subjective. The current form is just not a valid option. Piccadilly 17:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cloachland 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Archaeological sites in Korea[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 17:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Newly empty. Has been split into Category:Archaeological sites in South Korea and Category:Archaeological sites in North Korea. kingboyk 12:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is it not logical to keep this a parent category for these two then, given how totally irrelevant the modern border is for archaeology? Johnbod 12:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they have a shared parent category at Category:Korean archaeology. This just adds an unnecessary extra layer.

These are two seperate countries, like it or not, so there's no question they should be categorised seperately. The old scheme was way too redundant.--kingboyk 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should not be removed from the tree they are in before nomination, as it makes it hard to discuss a category which has just been isolated and emptied. Johnbod 12:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR. Two countries, two categories. That's how the rest of the category scheme works (both for the two Koreas and for archeological sites). If I'd just nominated, it would have left a lot of work for somebody else, as it wasn't bot processable. I've been bold and saved somebody else the trouble. Honestly, if we treat the two Koreas as one country we are being biased. Like it or not (and no doubt most editors don't like it) they are separate sovereign states. --kingboyk 13:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a CfD procedural point. Johnbod 13:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per conventions of Category:Archaeological sites by country which is divided by current countries rather than historical borders. Bencherlite 14:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and use as a parent, like many other all-Korea categories. Korea is not comparable to most former countries, because it is still a single nation (one of the most homogeneous on Earth) and may be politically reunited in the future. Piccadilly 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For articles on specific places, material in Wikipedia is generally organized along current national boundary lines. If articles contained categories for both Korea and either North or South Korea, it would look cluttersome. If the "Korea" category only contained subcategories for North and South Korea, then it would be a redundant layer of categorization. It would be better not to have this category. When Korea is reunited, this category can be recreated. Dr. Submillimeter 08:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Korea is a current entity, albeit a divided one, and its boundaries are clearcut. It has a comprehensive set of categories similar to other countries, and there are many other All-Korea categories. Thus this is a useful and standard navigational tool. It also ties up with the fact the Korean archaeology is all concerned with things that date from before the Korean War. Cloachland 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths from rectal trauma[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A joke category, surely?! No real room for expansion either. Lugnuts 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Oh, and is "no room for expansion" a joke on the subject? Sorry... I was compelled to ask. zadignose 13:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, it's stretching a point... Lugnuts 14:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this thing. I'll call it overcategorization. Doczilla 01:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't this thing be speedied? Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if it's not a pain in the arse... Lugnuts 08:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overkill. Carlossuarez46 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joke.SECisek 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Turkish auto racing drivers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Turkish auto racing drivers to Category:Turkish racecar drivers

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other sub-cats of Category:Racecar drivers by nationality. DH85868993 08:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Piccadilly 17:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. -Andrew c 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television pilots named "Pilot"[edit]

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. the wub "?!" 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category has the potential to be massive, but also be immensely useless as a category. I suggest it be listifed (where it can receive organisation) or straight out deleted (as I just can't think how a category telling the reason what is titled pilot is useful). Matthew 07:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the categorization of unrelated articles with a shared name, a form of overcategorization. These pilots are otherwise indistinguishable from other pilots. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 07:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The category is also being added to LOEs and season pages (which would contain episodes not titled pilot). Matthew 08:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If nothing else, it might be worth keeping a list to link to from the disamibugation page Pilot. Right now that page has the following text:

There are also countless series whose pilot episodes are titled "Pilot".

Further disambiguation on a separate list page might be nice. --Roger McCoy 08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created said page at List of television pilots named "pilot" and linked from Pilot. --Roger McCoy 08:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I could accept that this could work as a disambiguation page. Dr. Submillimeter 11:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Television pilots. Otto4711 12:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto. We don't need this level of detail. --kingboyk 13:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's next, Category:Gilligan's Island Episodes where they almost get off the island, but then Gilligan messes it up?
Merge per Otto. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Television pilots per Otto. This is overcategorisation: see WP:OCAT#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Otto. Doczilla 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Otto. Carlossuarez46 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Lincoln[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Lincoln to Category:People from Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Nominator's rationale: Rename, "Lincoln" is ambiguous. Most of these folks had probably never even been to Nebraska. Trovatore 07:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom and per a similar cat: Category:People from Boston, Lincolnshire. Lugnuts 10:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the article Lincoln, Lincolnshire Bencherlite 10:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per all above. Johnbod 12:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Puglia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Puglia to Category:Apulia

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match the main article name (Apulia). --Supparluca 07:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod 12:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 13:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect may prevent recreation of this category. Pavel Vozenilek 14:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I've put the subcategories up for renaming but it didn't consolidate them - I tried following the cfd page's way to nominate a group, but for renaming because there's an extra field from deletion it seemed to go astray. If someone could fix them, I'd be much obliged. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Sub-cats combined as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 29#Various Puglia categories. Bencherlite 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Comic Book Characters in Film[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete excessively broad, incorrectly capitalized category (which I know is a recreation, although finding the previous version of the category name will take me a bit). Yes, it was created by another obvious User:Creepy Crawler/User:EJBanks sockpuppet. Doczilla 00:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have Category:Films based on comics. This is too broad and would group characters from different genres, different film styles, etc based solely on the fact that they appeared in comic books.-Andrew c 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.