Category:Motorcycle racers who have driven F1 cars[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Ruslik_Zero 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge - appears to be the only category that names the two sports in which a competitor participated. Merging places all members into both sports categories and the multiple sports category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The listed category is a mixture of people who have competed in both motorcycle racing and Formula One (e.g. Mike Hailwood) and motorcycle racers who have driven a Formula One car, but who have not competed in Formula One (e.g. Giacomo Agostini, Michael Doohan, Max Biaggi, etc). On that basis, the contents should not be merged into Category:Formula One drivers (which is for drivers who have competed in Formula One) - all the members of the listed category who belong in the Category:Formula One drivers tree are already there. DH85868993 (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category based on just having driven a Formula One car? When there are driving schools, and thrill-seeker organisations all over the planet offerring to sell anyone a drive in a used Formula One car? Of utterly no notability as stated. --Falcadore (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and as DH85868993 said not all the content should be merged into the parent categories --ChrisSsktalk 06:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The context is that these people are notable (in wikipedia terms) motorcycle racers whose drive in a Formula One car is a significant event, not some lame leisure pursuit. Seems to me to be far more notable than such categories as Category:Footballers who switched code and categorizing people by nationality. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the footballers category is a poor one feel free to nominate it. The existence of the category doesn't serve to justify this one. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for stating the obvious, the point I was making is that following your logic, how can you argue that the non-existence of similar categories serves as a justification for deleting this one. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except the people in this category, with the exception of two or three, are not those who have driven in Formula One competitively. They are included because they have driven a Formula One car, period. Their driving in a Formula One car is also not a significant event. If this category remains, we might as well add Motorcycle racers who have driven rally cars and other such nonsense. The359 (Talk) 19:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doohan drove the Williams F1 car in 1998 at a Winfield promotional event when he, as the 1997 500cc world champion and Tommi Makkinen as the 1997 world rally champion were given a chance to drive the 1997 F1 champion's car. More recently John Hopkins and Vitantonio Liuzzi swap Vehicles in 2006 at a Red Bull promotional event and last year Nick Heidfeld and Troy Corser did the same at a BMW Fan event. These are not significant events.
I Also find the name of the category wrong "Motorcycle racers who raced ..." is not correct. Damon Hill started as a motorcycle club racer, should he be in this category? Michael Schumacher competed in the IDM Superbike championship after retirement, taking part at a motorcycle race makes him a motorcycle racer, should he be in this category?
I think a new category of "People who raced both cars and motorcycles" would be the best solution. Taking part in a race (rather than just driving) is a significant event, and the category doesn't have to be only about F1. people who took part in rally, GT, touring cars etc... can be added. Also making it "people who raced both" rather than "Motorcycle racers who raced cars" means that people who are mostly known as racecar drivers but also raced bikes can be added.--ChrisSsktalk 20:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. "People who raced both cars and motorcycles" seems a sensible way forward. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds then like deleting this category is the proper solution followed by a discussion on a relevant talk or project talk page to determine the proper scope of a new category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly renamed). Motorcyle racing and motor (car) racing are separate sports, so that participation in both is a notable intersection. It may be that it should be limited to those who have competed in both sports at the top level, and would have had an article if they had only been involved in one. Particupation in one race, or at a junior level should not qualify a person for includion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as way overbroad and trivial. If someone wants to create a category for people who have actually competed in both sports, then that could be done, but this doesn't look like that. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People who have ridden bicycles and unicycles : ) - jc37 20:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. GedUK 14:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete all - categorizing riders based on specific competitions in which they participated is a very bad idea. Riders can compete in any number of events and categorizing them on that basis would lead to category clutter. This is also a form of overcategorization by performance. Racers are categorized by nationality and racing variety, which is sufficient. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is categorization by racing variety. Putting 125cc riders and 500cc riders together would be the same as putting F1 drivers and F3 drivers together, or putting Grand Prix motorcycle racing World Championship riders together with British Superbike riders would the same as putting Formula drivers together with British touring car drivers --ChrisSsktalk 06:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not categorization by racing variety. It is categorizing by participation in specific races. These racers are already mixed together, since the nationality sub-cats are (correctly) not subdivided by specific competition. Even if there is some fundamental difference between a 125cc racer and a 500cc racer, that doesn't speak to the categories that aren't based on engine size. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is categorization by racing variety. Not all motorcycle classes participated in all World Championship races and the nationality of some racers is debatable. Categorization by engine size is standard practice in motorcycle racing records and it would be ludicrous for Wikipedia not to follow this standard. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but an individual racing event is not a "variety" of racing. There is no such thing as "Isle of Man TT racing style". The nominated categories are not based on engine size. They are based on individual races. Now if you want to create and populate categories that are actually for people who race on a particular size engine that's another discussion, but these categories aren't that. What motorcycle classes did or didn't compete at various world championships is not relevant. The debatable nature of some racers' nationality is not relevant. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm equally sorry that you think your subjective critique and rather patronising tone on such important issues is more relevant than anyone elses. I think you'd find plenty of people who say that the IOM races are a unique style of road racing. These categories are for people who have raced on a particular engine size. Engine size is the "variety" of racing just like F1, Indycar, NASCAR or anything else in motorsport, try racing a 500cc bike up against a 50cc and you'd perhaps better appreciate the difference. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look. I'm really not understanding what the comprehension problem is here. Category:125cc World Championship riders is not a category for people who ride 125cc bikes. It is a category for people who rode a 125cc bike in one specific race. Category:500cc World Championship riders is for people who rode 500cc bikes in one specific race. Category:Isle of Man TT racers does not track racers by engine size but instead riders who participated in one specific race. Categories based on engine size may be a worthwhile concept, I don't know. But that's not what these are and all your being pissy about imagined condescension isn't going to change that. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean one specific race? Category:125cc World Championship riders is for riders that took or are correctly taking part in the 125cc World Championship, a championship thats been taking place since 1949, it doesn't mater if someone took part in 1 race or 50 races, Category:500cc World Championship riders is for riders that took part in the 500cc World Championship, same goes for all other categories each lists riders that took part in the championship. The Isle of Man TT is an annual race rather than a championship but is a significant event on its own to justify a category --ChrisSsktalk 20:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying "one specific race" like the Boston Marathon is one specific race or the Men's Olympic slalom C-1 is one specific race or any other race which happens annually or quadrennially or what have you is one specific race. We don't categorize every Boston Marathon participant as a participant or every C-1 canoeist as a C-1 canoeist. You're saying exactly what I'm saying, that these are not categories based on engine size but on simply being in a race. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, me being pissy again! I don't understand your lack of comprehension either. If the category was "Motorcycle riders who rode 500cc bikes in the Italian Grand Prix", you'd have a valid point. But the World Championship isn't "one specific race" like the Boston Marathon. What you're saying in effect is that Marathon runners and javelin throwers should be in the same category because they compete "one specific" event like the Olympics. On that basis you might as well have one category for sporting people and be done with it. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "50cc World Championship riders" if not "Motorcycle riders who rode 50cc bikes in the World Championship"? The 50cc World Championship is still the 50cc World Championship whether it took place in 1963 or 1983 just like the Boston Marathon is the Boston Marathon whether it was run in 1963 or 1983. I am not suggesting and never suggested that there was exactly one running only of any of these races, nor can my comments reasonably be interpreted as calling for any change to the way marathoners and javelin throwers are categorized. Categorizing riders for simply participating (not even winning but simply showing up on a bike) would be like categorizing World Series of Poker players under every tournament they enter. "Showed up for the 125cc World Championship in 1987" is not a defining characteristic of any rider. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying "one specific race" like the Boston Marathon is one specific race or the Men's Olympic slalom C-1 is one specific race or any other race which happens annually or quadrennially or what have you is one specific race.
I would find a comparable analogy between 500cc riders and 250cc riders is not Boston marathon and New York Marathon, but Boston Marathon and 10,000 metre running. In running, the distance defines the discipline. In motor racing different classes of vehicle defines the discipline. To merge categories as you suggest would parallel for example, "Formula One drivers" and "Formula Ford drivers". --Falcadore (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But again, these are not categories for racers who rode particular engine sizes. They are racers who rode in a particular race which may or may not be limited to an engine size. Category:500cc riders is not the same thing as Category:500cc World Championship riders. I question whether "Riders by engine size" is defining since there is no reason why the same rider can't ride an engine of any size but I cannot be convinced that simply showing up for a particular race is defining of the racer. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Just to clarify: Are You The Cow Of Pain?, are you aware that each year's 500cc World Championship (for example) is a series of races, not just one race each year (and hence not exactly analogous to the Boston Marathon)? No offence intended - just trying to ensure that we're all on the same page. DH85868993 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply riding in it is still not a defining characteristic of an individual rider. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is motorcycle racing is the same because they all race motorcycles and so all riders should be in the same category. That is like saying all Bat-and-ball games are the same because they all use bats and balls and all cricket, baseball, etc... players should be in the same "Bat-and-ball players" category --ChrisSsktalk 06:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not even remotely what I am saying because, once again, these categories are not based on engine size. I honest-to-god do not understand why this is such a sticking point. These categories are not "Riders who ride an engine of a particular size". They are "Riders who showed up for a certain race which may or may not involve a particular size of engine". If you want to rename the five nominated categories which specify an engine size to be for riders who rode a particular engine size, great, let's do that and we can have a discussion another day about the definingness of riding a 250cc engine vs. riding a 350cc engine. But nine of the nominated categories make no mention of engine size so any argument that centers around engine size is completely irrelevant. Again, these categories are about whether bringing a motorcycle to a particular motorcycle race is a defining characteristic of a motorcycle racer. Thus far no arguments have been advanced that simply showing up to one of these races defines who these racers are. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"125cc World Championship" is a proper name, there is a motorcycle championship called that, participants in that championship are listed in Category:125cc World Championship riders. There is another motorcycle championship called "Superbike World Championship" again proper name, participants in that championship are listed in Category:Superbike World Championship riders. And Yes, participating in one of championships listed in the categories above is a defining characteristic of a motorcycle racer, much in the same way taking part in the Olympics is a defining characteristic of Track and field athletes. --ChrisSsktalk 19:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the equivalent of the Olympics because not just anyone can wander up to the Olympics and join in. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a failure to appreciate the significance of these particular events as a way of categorising motocycle riders. Taken to it's logical conclusion cow in pain does have a point, a seperate category listing riders who've participated in short-lived individual club or national series would be clutter, but participation in the most significant long-running international series is far more limiting and as important as categorising racing drivers as Formula One Drivers or 24 Hours of Le Mans drivers. Conversely grouping any 500cc racers together in a category together would be clutter, as by itself this information is meaningless and a category like American motorcycle racer better serves to give some vague but informed constriction. Mighty Antar (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that simply showing up for a race is not a defining characteristic of the racer. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually for the majority of these categories you couldn't just "show up and race" anymore than you could just "show up and race" in the Olympics, but even if you could, it is the stature of these particular events in the international arena that raises them above mere trivia. I can't understand why you don't get this. That you have ridden in one of these events such as the Isle of Man is as defining a characteristic for a motorcycle racer as competing in F1, the Indy 500 or Le Mans would be for a racing driver. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This Category for Isle of Man TT Riders was created after Wikipedia editors tagged certain Isle of Man TT Racer biographies as being orphaned articles. If the Category is removed certain articles will return to being orphaned or have very few links. The Category was designed for Isle of Man TT Riders that raced before WW2 to be indexed and many World Championship and post-war competitors have been included. The Category is very useful for any on-line editors that use or maintain the Isle of Man TT articles.Agljones (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned has nothing to do with how many categories an article is in. Orphaned means that the article isn't text linked to very many other articles. An orphaned article is still orphaned however many categories it's in. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just providing an explanation for why the category for Isle of Man TT Riders was created. Articles were being tagged by on-line editors who indulge in spurious and gratuitous editing including tagging articles for many reasons. The articles were tagged as they did not have any links and providing a category did not alleviate the problem of orphaned articles it helped in listing articles that could be linked at a later date. The problem with Motor-Cycle racing articles and biographies is that they are very underdeveloped compared to other sports. In respect to the Isle of Man TT Races it is a very different event compared to other motor-cycle racing events as it is run on public roads and is a time-trial. The Isle of Man TT Races at one time was part of the FIM World Championship and was more important as an event than all the other world championship round put together. This situation was comparable to the Indy 500, the Le Mans 24 Hour race, Monte Carlo Rally or the Monaco Grand Prix. Furthermore, motor-cycle racing is a specialised sport and certain competitors may only compete or specialise in the smaller classes and is more significant than the "left-handed golfer playing with the 5 iron...." argument. The categories also provided encyclopaedic value and also on-line editors that specialise in motor-cycle racing articles it allows them to monitor articles that they may not be aware that had been created and in-turn edit or provided extra links. Agljones (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I can appreciate that different race events can mean dramatically different venues, each of which "could" be useful categorisation. Though I have to admit that this does seem a bit close to "golfers who have played championship matches on specific golf courses using a nine iron"... - jc37 20:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename per nom. Ruslik_Zero 12:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Beagel (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - jc37 20:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Junior College men's basketball players[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. WP:TRIVIA whether a basketball player attends a junior college or not is trivia and almost never a defining characteristic. TM 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First, thanks for alerting me (the creator of the category) that you tagged this for deletion. I hope my sarcasm is apparent enough - I thought it was common courtesy to do so. Second, it isn't trivial if a basketball player went to junior college any more than it is trivial that they are from Maryland, etc (there are TONS of categories like this). The NJCAA is a seperate entity from the NCAA and while a player isn't inherently notable by playing for a JUCO, I think it is interesting to denote notable players who did. It wouldn't warrant an entry but a category seems appropriate. Rikster2 (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it is useful to have this category. Remember (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, being a former JUCO player actually is a defining characteristic (though of course not the only one) of a player once they move to a 4-year institution. It is a significant pipeline of players for many Division I institutions. Rikster2 (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I apologize for forgetting to notify you of the deletion, but there is no need for sarcasm. That a player went to junior college X is not trivial, but that he went to junior college in general is not.--TM 14:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Jrcla2. The category probably wants to be restricted to juco players who never went on to major colleges, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would respectfully disagree that the category should be restricted to players who only played at a Junior College. If the category exists, why would it not include all notable players who played at the JUCO level? It would make the category misleading and incomplete otherwise. What's the rationale for limiting it in that way? When a player transfers schools they are legitimately a former player at both institutions. Kyle Macy is legitimately both a "Purdue Boilermakers men's basketball player" and a "Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball player." Similarly, Larry Johnson is legitamately both a Junior college basketball player and a "UNLV Runnin' Rebels basketball player." Rikster2 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Isn't 99% if this produced by fermentation? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Deletion should also be on the table since most if not all of the members here are included based on the feedstocks they are using. That should not be a defining characteristic for a company. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The category does not attempt to list the "99% of this produced" (the list of major producers will be a blend of "top agro" and "top chemical" lists for each region). It shies away from mainstream manufacturing technologies, instead listing emerging, experimental processes ("manure? I hate manure!"). Wood alcohol is commonplace outside of North America, but it is unusual for the U.S. market, thus Mascoma Corporation is here, but Archer Daniels Midland (which is lightyears larger in the ethanol market) is not. I don't care much about merging, but in case of a merge decision the category must be repopulated with significant ethanol producers. Right now it's "fringe technology", after merge it should be "mainstream technology" in the first place. another comment. The category mixes up the concepts of a company (business) and a plant (thing). Most entries are corporations, others (Blue Flint Ethanol) are standalone plants operated by someone else (Headwaters Incorporated in this example). East of Borschov 07:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 19:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename as Beagel and Shawn. Almost all ethanol is produced by fermentation from beological materials containing sugars. Accordingly the bio- prefix is meaningless, but every brewer is also an ethanol producer, though not to provide fuel. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename per nom. Ruslik_Zero 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category and support renaming it to something that is more specific to the type of articles it contains. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Don't know what the purpose of this category is, it's almost empty - only includes a navbox in it. —SpacemanSpiff 14:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello spaceman these newses are confirmed officially nothing to be deleted if u wish to delete please inform it because there are no lie newses in that. tell me a single reason to delete it. I think you will understand what am i telling. பென்ஞமின் (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it is empty apart from something in user-space (which shouldn't be categorised at all). Occuli (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - empty (and believe me, it will remain empty forever!) and no purpose at all. Johannes003 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from its parent, I presume this is about a Tamil actor, but the only article has eben userified. So we have nothing in it. Only extremely notable people generate enough articles to need a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename per nom. Ruslik_Zero 16:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. G.A.Stalk 17:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename per nom. Ruslik_Zero 16:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest expanding abbreviation to match main article Socialist Unity Party of Germany. This is grouping non-politician members of this communist party. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Beagel (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Redundant. Bromador (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – there was a related cfd in Nov 2007. Occuli (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redundant and sparsely populated. East of Borschov 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Knights First Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The proposed name is the correct English translation of the German title. Caponer (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting note: Category was not tagged for renaming. It is now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Listify to Order of the Zähringer Lion. And I'm not thrilled that the only external link is to another wiki... I see the other two references (which I don't have), but I am not finding the original title in German is so that I can verify as to what the actual name is (in German, much less in English). Maybe this should be relisted with a request for more info? - jc37 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Knights Second Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The proposed category name is the correct English translation of the German title. Caponer (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting note: Category was not tagged for renaming. It is now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Listify to Order of the Zähringer Lion. And I'm not thrilled that the only external link is to another wiki... I see the other two references (which I don't have), but I am not finding the original title in German is so that I can verify as to what the actual name is (in German, much less in English). Maybe this should be relisted with a request for more info? - jc37 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename No objection from me. Something I always meant to get around to doing, but never did. A big thanks to Farix for doing the work/cleanup on it. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now it's under the under manned, Animanga project portfolio so rename is warranted. --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Object these are non-encyclopedic, Wikiproject categories, they should be prepended with Wikipedia or wikiproject. 74.216.194.130 (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are now work group categories. And so far, I have not seen a work group category pre-pended with either Wikipedia or WikiProject. You look at the WP:MILHIST's task force categories, you will see that they are not pre-pended by Wikipedia or WikiProject —Farix (t | c) 12:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. G.A.Stalk 17:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, in accordance with a long-standing convention against such extremely localised categories for MPs. Many MPs represent more than one constituency in the course of their careers, and localised categories such as this create category clutter on MPs, who are already heavily categorised. Note: this category was tagged for speedy renaming to Category:Petersfield MPs, and I have opposed that speedy in order to propose upmerger. If there is no consensus to upmerge, I would support a renaming BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (as speedier), to follow standard categorization scheme for UK MPs. Tassedethe (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- we do not need categories by constituency. The constituncy articles always contain lists in chonological order, and this is the best navigation tool. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 24#Category:Knights First Class of the Order of the Zähringer Lion. — ξxplicit 19:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)