Category:Mohiner Ghoraguli concerts
- 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
09:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Mohiner Ghoraguli concerts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, only has one entry - unlikely to be a need for this category which cannot be fulfilled by simply making a list in the band's main article.
greenrd
23:35, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Metric conversion
- 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
09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Metric conversion (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, contains just one template - which produces an error message when clicked on.
greenrd
23:27, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Members and associates of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Category:Members of St John Ambulance in Australia
- 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
09:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Members of St John Ambulance in Australia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, we should not be in the business of listing every single notable member of every single "good cause" organisation.
greenrd
23:10, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Marginocephalians
- 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
09:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Marginocephalians (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, empty.
greenrd
23:04, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Marist Brother schools
- 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
09:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Marist Brother schools to
Category:Marist_Brothers_schools
- 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.
- 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 (I left a redirect). --
RobertG ♬
talk
09:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge into
Category:Ships of Sweden, convention of
Category:Ships by country. --
Prove It
(talk)
22:55, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Massacres in Belarusia
- 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 Speedy Deleted,
Darwinek
21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Massacres in Belarusia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, empty.
greenrd
22:47, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 (I left a redirect). --
RobertG ♬
talk
09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Manx (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, empty, and clearly a duplicate of
Category:Isle of Man.
greenrd
22:35, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kiefer Sutherland
- 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
09:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Kiefer Sutherland (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete - there is not enough material to warrant an eponymous category. The articles are all on films and characters played by Sutherland, making this a performer by performance category. The articles should all be linked through the
Kiefer Sutherland article rather than categorized.
Otto4711
21:55, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Requests for unblock-auto
- 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 Speedy keep. Part Deux, you don't work on the unblock review crew, let alone an admin so this nomination is quite misguided. The sub-category helps us admins prioritise which cases to review first when there's a backlog. --
Netsnipe
►
07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Requests for unblock-auto to
Category:Requests for unblock
- Merge, unnecessary subcat; does not help administrators when figuring out who to block.
Part Deux
21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Why this nomination? It seems the admin who created it would know why they did it. If admins find it unuseful, they can take get rid of it. I can imagine it would be helpful to know who wants their username changed. —
coel
acan —
01:01, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Requests for username changes when blocked
- 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 Speedy keep. Part Deux, you don't work on the unblock review crew, let alone an admin so this nomination is quite misguided. The sub-category helps us admins prioritise which cases to review first when there's a backlog. --
Netsnipe
►
07:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Requests for username changes when blocked to
Category:Requests for unblock
- Merge, unnecessary subcat; does not help administrators when figuring out who to block.
Part Deux
21:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Why this nomination? It seems the admin who created it would know why they did it. If admins find it unuseful, they can take get rid of it. I can imagine it would be helpful to know who wants their username changed. —
coel
acan —
01:00, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Local Youth Groups
- 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.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
13:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Local Youth Groups (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete - I have moved the only article into a more specific category.
greenrd
20:46, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Literature of Karnataka
- 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. --
RobertG ♬
talk
09:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Literature of Karnataka (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, empty.
greenrd
20:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy keep - This is a very important category. The reason it is empty is not because there are no articles to categorise under this, but because all categories under Category:Karnataka have been under reorganisation for some time now. There were infact, more than 20 categories and I have myself cleaned up lot of them and brought it down to 12 or 14. This is a WIP and even as of now there are dozens of articles that can be categorised under this category. It is just that at the moment, I am a little confused about how the subcategories should look like and/or whether this category itself should be a subcategory of something else, etc.,. See
this page for more details. I had created that page for feedback when I initially started cleaning up the cats. I have done a lot of cleaning up since then but there is still some work left to do, which I will do asap. So please do not delete. Also feel free to comment on that page. Thanks.
Sarvagnya
22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, if still empty at close of discussion. Otherwise Keep --
Prove It
(talk)
00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy Keep per Sarvagnya. Categorization and recategorization has been done, and the work is in progress. Category is no more empty, and the nomination reason has now become obsolete. -
KNM
Talk
04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. An important category in combining literatures of different languages of Karnataka.
Gnanapiti
18:46, 11 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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 (in any case qualified for
CSD G7 and C1). --
RobertG ♬
talk
10:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:List of Media Artists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, lists are not categories.
greenrd
20:23, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:List of Major Electronic Companies
Category:Doctor Who people
- 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: reasonable arguments for both keeping and deleting, so a merge should be a reasonable compromise for everyone.
>Radiant<
13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Doctor Who people (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete - category is being used to hold several subcats, all of which are either going to be listified and deleted or are up for deletion. If any of the subcats survive, the main category
Category:Doctor Who is sufficent as a parent. Also holding a number of people involved in the production, making it an improper categorization of person by project.
Otto4711
20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- And even if the subcats do get deleted, this cat will be useful for all the lists that they get turned into!
Jheald
20:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Two of the subcats, for cast members and directors, are already going to be deleted, probably by the end of the day. Of the other three, dozens of CFDs over the last several weeks have established that categorizing people by individual project is improper. Even if for some bizarre reason those three cats don't end up deleted, it doesn't address the unnecessary layer of categorization or the dozens of articles that have been improperly categorized there.
Otto4711
21:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
AnemoneProjectors (
talk)
13:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There is strong consensus not to categorize anyone by the projects on which they work. Actors, writers, directors, producers, general "crew" categories, all deleted per strong consensus that categorizing people by project is overcategorization. "(Project name) people" is also very vague. We recently deleted "Star Wars-related people" for just that reason, because people were putting everyone from George Lucas to Joseph Campbell to random Star Wars bloggers in it. It's hard enough to maintain project-based categories without encouraging misuse by have "...people" categories. Newman should be named in the main article on Doctor Who and other projects that he was involved in creating and those projects should be named in his article, but there is no reason why he should be categorized under either "Doctor Who people" or "Doctor Who." It's an unnecessary layer of categorization for holding lists and I see no reason to depart from consensus because there may be one or two unusual cases.
Otto4711
21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I don't agree with the consensus that categorization by projects is overcategorization, but I won't stand in its way if it's really that widespread. But even granting this consensus in general, I don't see why it needs to be applied as a universal rule: "
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
When an individual is primarily known for his or her association with a project, I don't see why it's inappropriate to categorize them by that association. It really is beginning to look as if people are using "overcategorization" as a buzzword excuse for
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
03:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I'm honestly not sure how, looking back over the CFDs for the last six weeks or so, you can't see a consensus against categorizing people by project. All actor by series categories are subject to listification and deletion. All director by series categories are subject to listification and deletion. All writer by series categories are subject to listification and deletion. All crew by series categories are subject to listification and deletion. We've deleted a couple of dozen sports-related categories simply because they were being used as de facto performer by network categories. We just deleted over a dozen eponymous categories that were being used as containers for the individual's projects. We deleted "Star Wars-related people." We deleted "Joss Whedon shows." We deleted "Tim Minear shows." I don't agree that applying the same standards to these Dr Who categories is a foolish consistency. I think it's a bright line that we can point to as a way of reducing foolish inconsistency. It's easy enough to point at specific articles and say "what's the harm in making an exception for this article?" but then where does the line get drawn? Why put ourselves in the position of deciding that this person is important enough to this project to be put in the category but that person is not important enough to that project?
Otto4711
04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, I can see that such a consensus exists. I just think it's misguided and is being overzealously applied. And I really don't see the difficulty in making the decision you speak of, but that's probably because my judgment would generally be to include categories if someone thinks they would be useful navigational tools. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
05:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- As navigation tools, lists do a much better job than categories for presenting this information, without cluttering up articles with scores of categories. Listifying is really a win-win solution. --
SamuelWan
tman
09:07, 12 March 2007 (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:Doctor Who novelists
- 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: convert to list. Same reasoning should apply to this one and the two below.
>Radiant<
13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Doctor Who novelists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete - categorizing novelists based on whether the subject of their books is a licensed property or not is overcategorization.
Otto4711
20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Why is this "overcategorisation"? And what is this mania for deleting categories? This category, and many other categories of person by project, are useful navigational aids to find other people associated with the said project. There is no evidence that the subjects of the articles are suffering from an excessive number of categories. So why delete the useful navigational pointer?
Jheald
20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Doctor Who is a highly notable licensed property.--
greenrd
20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Er, yes, I mentioned that in my nomination. That the property is notable doen't mean that people who write novels about the property should be categorized as such.
Otto4711
21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This is essentially a performer by performance category.
Doczilla
06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete If we categorise every author by the "universe" in which they have written books, then popular tie-in authors will end up having dozens of categories.
Bluap
06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - These authors have written books for multiple "fictional universes". This is akin to categorizing comic book writers by specific title or TV writers by show, both of which were not practical (as the long lists of categories for every project in every writer's article would be difficult to read). This category should be deleted.
Dr. Submillimeter
09:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep if
List of Doctor Who actors is an example of what people promoting deleting this category would prefer in its stead
Tim!
09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - See
list of blue plaques for a better example of how a category can be turned into a list. (The page was started when a category for people with blue plaques was deleted and listified.)
Dr. Submillimeter
14:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I created the list of actors so that the category could be deleted. I am not a subject matter expert which is why I put right in the article that the attention of a subject matter expert was required. Regardless, the existence of that article in a poor form has no bearing on whether this category should exist.
Otto4711
15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Tim!, nominator also gave no rationale except "I don't like it.."
Matthew
11:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The list was created yesterday. I was not aware that lists were supposed to be letter-perfect the day after they were created; I'll try to do better next time.
Otto4711
21:11, 11 March 2007 (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:Doctor Who composers
- 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: convert to list.
>Radiant<
13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Doctor Who composers to
Category:British television composers
- Merge - overcategorization by specific performance. Merge in line with all recent CFDs deleting or merging project-specific categories.
Otto4711
20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - as per the story editors below. The relevant biographical articles do not appear to be suffering from an excessive number of categories. Therefore the proposed reason for deletion is spurious and over zealous. Why delete useful navigational cross-referencing ?
Jheald
20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Because CFD after CFD after CFD has come to the consensus that categorizing people based on specific projects on which they worked in inappropriate. We have deleted tegories for actors, writers and directors by TV series, categories for personalities by TV network, and so on. There's nothing about writing music for Doctor Who which necessaitates an exception to that consensus.
Otto4711
21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. If we end up categorising composers by series of programmes and/or films that they have composed music for, then many composers (e.g.
John Williams will end up with scores of categories.
Bluap
06:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - See my comments for
Category:Doctor Who novelists. Those comments apply to this category as well.
Dr. Submillimeter
09:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep if
List of Doctor Who actors is an example of what people promoting deleting this category would prefer in its stead
Tim!
09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - See
list of blue plaques for a better example of how a category can be turned into a list. (The page was started when a category for people with blue plaques was deleted and listified.)
Dr. Submillimeter
14:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I created the list of actors so that the category could be deleted. I am not a subject matter expert which is why I put right in the article that the attention of a subject matter expert was required. Regardless, the existence of that article in a poor form has no bearing on whether this category should exist.
Otto4711
15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Listify per other similar categories. —
AnemoneProjectors (
talk)
13:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: There is no legitimate danger of overcategorization here. However, if deleted, please listify with a properly wikilinked list (unlike the shoddy
List of Doctor Who actors). —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry the list sucks so bad. It's been up for a day. I'll try to make sure any future lists I make are perfect in form and function before posting them next time.
Otto4711
21:13, 11 March 2007 (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:Libraries by city
- 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. --
Xdamr
talk
17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Libraries by city (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, empty.
greenrd
20:07, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Doctor Who story editors
- 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: convert to list.
>Radiant<
13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Doctor Who story editors (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete - in line with all the many similar deletions of categories by profession. There is already a list article and this is overcategorization.
Otto4711
20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - there may be a list article, but few of the relevant bios point to it. Nor do the relevant bios appear to be suffering from an excessive number of categories. Therefore this category would appear to be useful, and the proposed reason for deletion appears spurious and over zealous.
Jheald
20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The list has the needed information. Do not categorize people by every different job they ever had.
Doczilla
06:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - See my comments for
Category:Doctor Who novelists. Those comments apply to this category as well. Additionally, I have to agree that this level of categorization is insane. (I expect
Category:Doctor Who key grips next.)
Dr. Submillimeter
09:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep if
List of Doctor Who actors is an example of what people promoting deleting this category would prefer in its stead
Tim!
09:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - See
list of blue plaques for a better example of how a category can be turned into a list. (The page was started when a category for people with blue plaques was deleted and listified.)
Dr. Submillimeter
14:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I created the list of actors so that the category could be deleted. I am not a subject matter expert which is why I put right in the article that the attention of a subject matter expert was required. Regardless, the existence of that article in a poor form has no bearing on whether this category should exist.
Otto4711
15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Listify per other similar categories. —
AnemoneProjectors (
talk)
13:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I feel like the people wanting to keep this category should explain why it should be treated differently from every other sort of category of people by project. Consensus has been to delete categories for actors, directors, producers, writers and miscellaneous "crew" so why exactly should story editors for Doctor Who be an exception to that?
Otto4711
21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Well, speaking for myself, I don't agree with the consensus that people by project is overcategorization, so I don't feel the need to explain why this example of people by project is any different from other categories which I personally feel should have been kept. I recognize that a general consensus about "people by project" seems to have been reached, but I'm not yet completely reconciled to it, and will continue to speak up for categories which I feel are useful navigational tools. And remember,
consensus can change. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
04:14, 12 March 2007 (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:Legal organisations in Ireland and Britain
- 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.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
13:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Legal organisations in Ireland and Britain (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, this category appears to have been created to make a non-NPOV political point, or something. It is pointless to have a category which lists all non-illegal organisations in the two countries, and it is silly and potentially libelous and/or potentially non-NPOV to then point out that "oh, by the way, these are operating legally but may be viewed as terrorist organisations by some governments". Overall, a trainwreck.
greenrd
19:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Conditional Retain (for as long as
32 County Sovereignty Movement is included in the
Category:Designated terrorist organizations). I created the category and would contest the view that this was POV-motivated. I am a Wikpedian of many years standing and am an academic. The creation of the category was an attempt to counter the insistence of
User:Weggie in including this organisation in the
Category:Designated terrorist organizations. As I have outlined in the
article's talk page, the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, which I should add is a group that I detest, is categorised by the US State Dept as a terrorist organisation. Yet, the group operates openly in the
Republic of Ireland and the
United Kingdom. Its leaders are well known, it publishes a newspaper, has postal addresses and telephone numbers. While the US categorisation is a fact, the inclusion in the
Category:Legal organisations in Ireland and Britain serves to highlight that this (the US) view is of no significance in the territories where this organisation operates. The
Category:Designated terrorist organizations does not represent a world view, places the views and designations of one government above two sovereign states, and is the problem here.--
Damac
20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment
Category:Designated terrorist organizations does have its own problems, but these are not at issue here. This discussion is about a category for legal organizations. Such a category is not viable for all the reasons already mentioned. --
rimshots
talk
13:31, 15 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kalinowski family
- 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. --
Xdamr
talk
17:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Kalinowski family (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, empty.
greenrd
19:31, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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
10:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Investigators (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete. It is not clear whether the category is meant to solely include Lovecraft characters. If it is, then it is poorly-named and of questionable value. If it is not, it is too vague and of questionable value. Overall, of questionable value.
greenrd
19:23, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Film as Literature
- 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
10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Film as Literature (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, lacks objective criteria for inclusion.
greenrd
18:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Objection, This category is very relevant, though I realize the objective criteria for inclusion have not been specified. This will soon follow.
bionicplatypus
20:52, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2006 elections in Scotland
Category:Fictional ailurophiles
- 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
10:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Fictional ailurophiles (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- 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.
- 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
16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Comic relief to
Category:Comic relief characters
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to attempt to disambiguate this category from the British charity organisation
Comic Relief, and for consistency with the naming patterns in the parent category.
greenrd
16:38, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Culver Military Institute alumni
Category:Battles of Second Sino-Japanese War
Category:Background Notes
Pokémon locations by region
- 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
16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Two-footed football (soccer) players (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
This category is inherently POV, and potentially confusing — don't all notable footballers have two feet?
I understand what the author is aiming for, but this category can only possibly cause arguments as to which players are truely skilled with both feet, and which are not.
aLii
10:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Left-footed football (soccer) players (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Right-footed football (soccer) players (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- I've taken the liberty of adding the above two categories to the nomination. While many players favor one foot over the other and left-footed players are overwhelmingly deployed on the left side of the field, it is not anything that's set in stone and highly POV and OR.
Ytny (
talk)
18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per above.
Matthew_hk
t
c
11:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as it is impossible to objectively qualify who is and who isn't two-footed.
Qwghlm
12:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete This category seeks to replace shades of grey with black and white distinctions.
Haddiscoe
12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete POV, original research in most cases. Can we also delete
Category:Right-footed football (soccer) players and
Category:Left-footed football (soccer) players while we're at it?
Ytny (
talk)
14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete
WP:OR, POV, etc. This is not like being a
Switch hitter because in baseball one has to declare which side he is batting from in each at bat. Many players score goals with both feet and the extent to which players are ambidexterous is debatable from what I understand about soccer.
TonyTheTiger (
talk/
cont/
bio)
18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete For all the reasons above, and simply because I can't see why this would even be useful
Cunners
03:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete this nonsense.
Doczilla
06:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all three. It's category cruft. Painfully irrelevant. —
coel
acan —
01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete nonsense over-categorisation
The Rambling Man
11:34, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Monsters, Inc. characters
- 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 so long as the articles exist. --
RobertG ♬
talk
17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Monsters, Inc. characters (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Listify and delete. Like many films: this is character cruft that can be in a list instead. Monsters Inc is one film (plus a short spinoff film that has some of the characters). From what I've read on the character articles: it's nothing of importance that can't be described on a list page instead. As a note: the list page shouldn't be every character, just the main ones (listed in this cat) along with possibly a few others. This fancruft needs massive cleaning on Wikipedia, hopefully this is the start of many categories becoming lists. Just because a film is popular and/or well known: doesn't mean all these characters articles must exist.
RobJ1981
10:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Organizing fictional characters based on the movie/TV show/book/etc that they appear in is usually very sensible. This is one of the few useful ways to organize fictional characters. Moreover, it is part of a useful categorization hierarchy. (If putting
Mike Wazowski in
Category:Monsters, Inc. characters is not useful, then where should he be placed?)
Dr. Submillimeter
17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: What I meant above is: listify the articles in the cat to something such as "List of Monsters Inc. characters", then delete the category. There is alot of fancruft going on with film characters. Monsters Inc was one movie (with a spinoff short film): each character article isn't much, and can be explained better in a list page for all of them. Short articles for each character is just cruft that wont be expanded much.
RobJ1981
21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - This sounds more like an issue with the individual articles and not the category itself. The debate on whether or not the articles should be merged into a single list article should take place on the articles' pages. The debate on this page is about whether or not to keep the category page. As long as the articles exist, the category should also exist to organize the articles.
Dr. Submillimeter
09:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. This is a useful way to contain these articles into a single category. If you get the articles merged, then the category can go away. But while the articles exist, the category should stay.--
Mike Selinker
23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. If the characters merit individual articles, it's appropriate to categorize them in this way. If they don't, the pages can be merged into a list of characters and the category deleted. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
20:09, 11 March 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 category's talk page (if any). 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: delete.
>Radiant<
13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Jewish Economists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
I'll admit I don't know what current practice is regarding this kind of category, but I find it distasteful to categorise economists by their religion. I would vote for deletion of this category. --
woggly
07:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - We should not categorize economists by religious belief (Jewish, Roman Catholic, atheist, Presbyterian, etc) unless someone can justify that religion has a reasonable impact on how people study economics. If Jewish people have suffered from discrimination in economics, then an article on the subject would be able to say more about the subject than a mere category.
Dr. Submillimeter
08:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, We should not create Occupation by religion categories unless the religion is relevant to the occupation. --
Prove It
(talk)
14:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as irrelevant intersection, unless someone can come up with good evidence that Jewishness was a defining factor in these economists approach to their work. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Procedural keep. For those who think this is "distasteful", I have a nasty surprise: take a look at
Category:Jews by occupation. Since, according to nomination's rationale, those should all be deleted, including
Category:Jews by occupation, this discussion really belongs there - hence my "procedural keep" vote. BTW: "Jewish" in this context means "belonging to Jewish people"; it does not designate religion. Almost all intersections of nationality/ethnicity and occupation are "irrelevant": should we delete
Category:French economists too just because "Frenchness" is not a defining factor for these economists?
GregorB
21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per GregorB. Jews by occupation, is encyclopedic and not distasteful. Should we get rid of that Jews by occupation category? If so, should we get rid of journalists, and novelists, and musicians? I believe this is a useful category.
Part Deux
21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I don't think you can state unequivocaly that Jews by occupation is "not distasteful". I find it distasteful, and I don't find it consistently encyclopedic. There are differences between some of these occupations: there is such a thing as Jewish music, there is such a think as Jewish literature, therefore classifying musicians and authors as Jewish makes more sens - there is a strong cultural component to their work, and being Jewish is part of their culture.
Category:Jewish mathematicians is a whole different story, and I now see that this category was also fairly recently nominated for deletion, with a no consensus outcome. I would definitely vote to delete several of these "Jewish... " categories. Thanks Doczilla for pointing out the actual stated Wikipolicy on this (see below). It's not a clear-cut matter - all occupations have some cultural component - but it looks to me like deleting the Jewish economists and Jewish mathematicians categories would accord with existing policy. --
woggly
11:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Jews are an ethnicity as well.
Baka
man
02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. It also happens to be incorrectly capitalized.
Doczilla
06:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete There is no more reason to categorise economists by ethnicity than by religion.
Honbicot
12:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I've seen no argument that there's any "Jewish way to do economics" so this is an irrelevant intersection. —
coel
acan —
01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as overcategorisation. --
Xdamr
talk
03:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
RaveenS
16:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as an irrelevant intersection.
Wilchett
03:09, 20 March 2007 (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: interesting. Guidelines would support a rename, but this nom is getting rather messy with several suggested names and no apparent consensus. Would suggest relisting with a clear proposal, or an RFC on the subject.
>Radiant<
13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- East Timor is a candidate member that would join iin about five years.--
23prootie
23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- So Timor-Leste would still be excluded today, "Southeast Asia" is better here, since the ASEAN doesn't control sports events. --
Howard
the
Duck
01:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Actually ,I agree in creating
Category:Southeast Asian sports events (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) (or more broadly
Category:Sport in Southeast Asia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)) but I would still like to keep this category to distinguishpan-regional events from national ones, in the case of East Timor, i'm not really sure, but technically candidates qualify as de facto members.--
23prootie
21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There's no such thing as a "de facto" member in international organizations, either you're a member or not. I'd still vote delete since ASEAN doesn't control these, just as the EU not controlling the
European Football Championship. --
Howard
the
Duck
08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Well you have a point... but I would still Keep the category since the
ASEAN ParaGames and the
ASEAN Football Championship have associated themselves with the bloc by explicitly branding themselves "ASEAN".--
23prootie
01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
For deletion:
Category:Organizations revolving around ASEAN (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) - empty.
- But the thing is they're not a part of the ASEAN period. --
Howard
the
Duck
09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - I populated it already, and if your wondering about the name, I named it to make it appear like a
solar system, where the planets occupy the neighborhood of the sun but aren't fully integrated with it. What I'm saying is that these groups work under the ASEAN system but some are not fully dependent on it.--
23prootie
21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Since you populated this already, I'll withdraw this part of the nomination. --
Howard
the
Duck
08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- So who knows what ASEAN means? Given that Indonesia is a member, and also given its important in the surrounding region, from Japan through Australia and into the South Pacific, probably about as many people as know what, say, NATO means. But I take your point - a rename makes sense.
Grutness...
wha?
22:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Rename to the more grammatically corect examples below:
- This ambiguity is what i'm trying to avoid with using the abbreviations. Anyway, the Secrataries General i got from
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Political_office-holders, the rest I 'm not really sure, the
European Union use your formula but using that on ASEAN really sounds awkward, I mean
Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations members (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs). Gosh that's annoying!--
23prootie
21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- What's more annoying is that there are different naming conventions; although since the Sec-Gen has a standard (like what you've said), I'll withdraw that part, I'll continue my suggestion for other places. --
Howard
the
Duck
08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- This is the reason why I am pushing for the acronym since using it would eliminate ambiguities surrounding the article "the". Anyway,
Category:CARICOM uses your formula for members, but its an acronym so it still sounds ok, while
Category:World Trade Organization uses the extended for in the main category but uses the acronym on subcategories.
Category:Commonwealth of Nations, on the otherhand, uses my formula for its members. Basically what I'm saying is that there is no definite convention on these so its kinda our choice. I'll stick to the acronym. What's yours? --
23prootie
01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- These are categories, ergo, it should be straight to be point and easy to understand. ASEAN isn't that fairly well known and a person will think, "what an ASEAN?" so the full name should be used unless it doesn't mean anything (like
NBC) or it's of another language (like
FIA). As for subarticles, acronyms are OK (
List of members of the ASEAN,
1987 NBA season, and so forth). --
Howard
the
Duck
04:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I still don't get your rationale on using acronyms for subarticles but not on subcategories. I mean people are still gonna ask the same question when they look at the subarticles so why the double standards? If the acronym is used for titles then why not for subcategories? Anyway, the main category is
Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations so by just looking at the bottom of the page, they would prabaly know what it means. Also you haven't answered my question, would you rather have awkward sounding subcategories like
Category:Association of Southeast Asian Notions members or, for me, better sounding ones like
Category:Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations? Like I said before, I prefer the latter if were not gonna pick acronyms.--
23prootie
01:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- "Awkward-sounding" is your POV, I have yet to see a naming convention for this in the specific subject, so I'd still use that, actually its used on other categories, like
Category:National Basketball Association awards (take note it's not
Category:NBA awards. There are already countless category names which were originally acronyms but were then spelled out (one is
Category:UAAP which became
Category:University Athletics Association of the Philippines;
Category:NCAA Philippines which became
Category:National Collegiate Athletic Association (Philippines)), and so on. --
Howard
the
Duck
02:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- But you have yet give an awkward sounding example. As far as I'm concerned, all of those examples sounds fine. Besides, I think grammar should have some weight on naming. Anyway, ASEAN is official, see
here. --
23prootie
03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- And so are the acronyms "UAAP", "NBA" and "WWE", they're all official. As I've told you before, it's your POV that it's awkward-sounding, but unless you'd read Wikipedia aloud, it wouldn't make a difference. The name
Association of Southeast Asian Nations members doesn't register as wrong grammar in MS-Word, and since you'd want it shorter, isn't it that "Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations" is longer than "Association of Southeast Asian Nations members"? Either way your arguments won't work, on me at least. --
Howard
the
Duck
03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- It does make a difference, considering there are things such as
spoken articles. Anyway, if you prefer using
Association of Southeast Asian Nations members thene why don't you rename
List of members of the ASEAN into
List of Association of Southeast Asian Nations members or
List of ASEAN members. I mean as you've said its not wrong grammar.--
23prootie
06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- It does make a difference, considering there are things such as
spoken articles. Anyway, if you prefer using
Association of Southeast Asian Nations members thene why don't you rename
List of members of the ASEAN into
List of Association of Southeast Asian Nations members or
List of ASEAN members. I mean as you've said its not wrong grammar.--
23prootie
06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- No difference, we are talking about categories, not articles, unless you propose a "Spoken Categories Wikiproject". Categories and articles are different, the standards used on articles may be of no use for categories and vice versa. (ex: It's pretty stupid to add a table of contents on the category page, unless it's the alphabetical kind.) Acronyms are OK for subarticles, but for categories, unless they're of another language or the acronym doesn't mean anything, we'd spell out the whole name. Someone from Romania when they see
Category:ASEAN might remark: "What the heck is ASEAN?" If it was
Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations there'd be less ambiguity
- (FYI, this is the only time where I've encountered opposition of renaming categories that are acronyms, all others passed unopposed, LOL.) --
Howard
the
Duck
08:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not totally against spelling out acronynyms (and I was actually ready to concede a few days ago) but if your gonna use the full name pleas use the best name for the category. It's not as if the category "members of xx org." has never been used I mean just look
above. so if your willing to compromise, I'm willing to compromise.--
23prootie
- There's nothing to compromise about, as I've said neither my or your suggestion is grammatically wrong; so I'd rather go with me format. --
Howard
the
Duck
14:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- What format? As far as i can tell its basically anything goes. Anyway, my suggestion still sounds better than yours but you don't care so i'll jus stop here, for now at least. --
23prootie
11:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Again, it's your POV that yours is better. grammatically speaking, they're the same. If you'd want it shorter, you'd agree with my format. Can you cite anything that it is grammatically wrong? --
Howard
the
Duck
11:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Also keep or delete for
Category:ASEAN Heritage Sites (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) since the list is based on the website
ASEAN's Greatest Parks. --
23prootie
23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as ASEAN, as it is fairly well known, and concise.
132.205.44.134
23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - the ASEAN heritage park is a program of the ASEAN, distinct from the UNESCO world heritage list. The two should not be mixed up with each other, which would happen by naming the category to something like Heritage parks of Southeast Asia. Naming the category "Greatest parks" would make it even more likely that parks not parts of this program will get put into this category, because someone though it is a "great park". But maybe the name "ASEAN Heritage Park" instead of "Heritage Site" would be better, as it is the correct name of the program.
andy
22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep all, except for event and sports which I abstain. ASEAN is unambiguous and is actually more well-known than its full name. Using the full form would be too awkward for category. --
Vsion
02:11, 16 March 2007 (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:Fellows of the Econometric Society elected in [...]
Category:Jewish inventors
Category:Italian Counterrevolutionaries
- 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 without prejudice.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
12:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Italian Counterrevolutionaries (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete. Empty - only contains the text Joseph de Maistre. This guy was French, not Italian, so he doesn't belong in this category!
greenrd
04:20, 10 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Historically Italian-American colleges
- 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
09:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Historically Italian-American colleges (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete There is no such thing as a historically Italian-American college, Googling the phrase "historically italian american college" yielded four results: three from Wikipedia and one mirror. Additions to this category would be purely POV. —
Music
Maker
03:53, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:International Law professors
- 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 :
Category:International Law professors into
Category:International_law_scholars.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
13:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Perhaps, but is there any reason why we shouldn't start? --
Xdamr
talk
16:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Reply Yes, there is! The term "professor" has very different meanings on opposite sides of the Atlantic. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Ah, I see. Ok then, Merge per convention. --
Xdamr
talk
01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment There is no need to rename, if you take a look at the category you will see that there are no underscores. That is just the way it was typed.
-
Xdamr
talk
13:26, 14 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Australian banknotes
Category:Hiragana and katakana place names
Category:Witness requested by a Guantanamo detainee who was deemed not to be reasonably available
- 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 speedy delete by
Vegaswikian. —
coel
acan —
01:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Ghanian people (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, empty and appears to be a typo - the "see" link goes to the category with the apparently correct spelling.
greenrd
01:14, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Graduates of Western New England College
Category:Graffiti and unauthorised signage Image
Category:Video games cleanup
- 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 speedy delete by
Vegaswikian. —
coel
acan —
01:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:George Enescu (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, Empty.
greenrd
00:56, 10 March 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Gambling variants