Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 3
| < February 2 | February 4 > |
|---|
February 3
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was renamè. Syrthiss 15:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where the heck did that accent come from? DHowell 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why use the word "clique" anyway? Rename to "Groups of entertainers" or something like that. >Radiant< 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. I understand what this is for. "Groups of entertainers" is so vague that it would need to be deleted for well, vagueness. CalJW 20:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on "Groups of entertainers": that is very vague, and nearly every music group, comedy troupe, duo, etc could be included. Clique is the best way to describe this category, as most are social circles that also occasionally collaborate professionally.--Fallout boy 05:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete, all entries already exist in the suggested merge cat. Syrthiss 15:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a terrible category that serves no purpose that Category:Teen Titans animated series characters doesn't. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge don't delete. Golfcam 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge the cat. >Radiant< 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the entries in "Minor" are already in the other category. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was I got a fever and the only cure is more deleted cowbells. Syrthiss 15:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one and soon there'll be "Songs with triangles", "Symphonies with basoon", etc... The epitome of over-categorization. -- Samuel Wantman 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Cowbell is a special cult phenomenon. It should remain. See More cowbell. Dr U 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are even entire websites dedicated to this:
- Delete, create a list if you want but this is definitely overcat. >Radiant< 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The list already exists here --Samuel Wantman 02:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly the cowbell must be expanded upon not deleted. I gotta have more cowbellNatedog723 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Obviously not a good idea, and highly unmaintainable --FuriousFreddy 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redundant with List of songs featuring cowbells, and categories are only supposed to be for "notable" attributes of a topic. dbenbenn | talk 21:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Overcat. Vegaswikian 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Samuel Wantman and Dbenbenn. Deborah-jl Talk 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was wrong forum, no action other than what is described below. Syrthiss 15:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think Category:World records should be deleted; simply that most of its members should not be in the category. For example, Rajaratna Ruby is in the category, but the article says nothing about any world record. People's Republic of China is the same. This category should contain articles about world records, such as World Record progression 100 m men; and not merely articles about things that have achieved records. dbenbenn | talk 19:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you don't want the category deleted, then this is not the correct place to list it. If you feel that some of the articles in the category are miscategorised, be bold and edit the individual articles to remove them from this cat. Valiantis 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and did a couple; it is more appropriate to link to List of world records as a see also in especially relevant cases. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, just to note why this cat shouldn't work like this: you need a list because you need to identify both the item and what it holds the world record for. Seeing People's Republic of China in this category tells me nothing about it. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted a bunch of the entries that were ill-referenced. Certain articles and lists that are specific to the "record-ness" of the item were kept (e.g., longest bridges) and carved out "record lists" from certain other categories that were otherwise only tangential to the subject and added entries for those (e.g., Oldest people). Carlossuarez46 17:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Vampire movies and Category:Vampire films to Category:Vampires in film and television
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 15:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"films" was tagged for deletion on 12/08, but not listed here. Looking around, I found where the vampire movies appear to belong, the third cat above. There's also a single entry "Movies" cat that should also be merged into the proper home, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 17:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Josh 07:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead and Merge: both tagged categories have been emptied. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 12/09, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 17:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/delete, redundant. >Radiant< 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 15:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 1/15, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another case, like the one just below, where I listed it for the sake of the process, following through with the process started by the person who originally tagged the category. And again in this case I'm going to actually vote Keep on the category itself. Looks like a well populated and used category. - TexasAndroid 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Might be a POV magnet, but in balance I'd be inclined to keep. Valiantis 20:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, POV magnet. >Radiant< 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even if some may be incliend to use it for POV purposes, the title itself is not POV, any more than the word 'murder' is POV. Articles can delve into the details of a particular case, the accusations, athe counter-arguments, etc. The category should remain. Josh 06:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What is POV about this? subcat "World War II crimes" ain't POV as well - Darwinek 14:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Some things are unabiguously war crimes, and the tag, used with discretion, is useful. Dr U 17:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 15:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 1/11, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting that I'm not the one who tagged this or most of the others I've listed here today, I have to say that on this one at least, I have to say Keep. This is part of a larger system of alma mater categories for Wikipedians, and it makes no sense to me to delete just this one. (I listed it for the sake of the process.) - TexasAndroid 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a harmless User/Wikipedian category, apparantly useful to some. Josh 06:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 12/10, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 16:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops. Thanks. tregoweth 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's only had two hosts anyway. JW 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy rename (tho not so speedy apparently). Syrthiss 15:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second was tagged for deletion back in early December. but looking at it, the one tagged is IMHO the proper name, given the expanded abbreviation. So I'm tagging the first for merge back into the second. - TexasAndroid 16:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename of the 5th variety. Valiantis 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy rename, simple abbreviation replacement. Josh 06:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was reverse merge. Syrthiss 15:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 12/08, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 16:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be merged the other way around. Supreme Court of the United States is the official name of the body concerned, not United States Supreme Court. JulesH 14:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense to me. I support this alternative. - TexasAndroid 20:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse Merge. Vegaswikian 21:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategory of Blogs. One article in category, Gamepolitics.com. Confusing with Websites running the LiveJournal engine. --Christopherlin 16:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per Christopherlin -- JonHarder 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete overcategorisation. Bhoeble 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 12/09, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 15:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per nom. Valiantis 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to fix capitalization. Not speedy because all articles are named forts, but I still think in this usage it should be lower-case. Josh 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Josh 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Josh 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 12/10, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 14:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, use classification by century instead. >Radiant< 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too fuzzy. Possible candidate for a list (I know how hard is to maintain such lists). Pavel Vozenilek 21:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 1/21, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 14:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, don't see the point. >Radiant< 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 12/12, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 14:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Harvey, Illinois has only 29,000 people, with two notables. -Will Beback 10:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 1/27, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 14:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sufficiently covered by parent category. Pavel Vozenilek 21:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Syrthiss 15:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 1/21, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 14:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a spelling mistake. Merchbow 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, empty misspelled duplicate of Category:Battles of the Ottoman Empire. =choster 06:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete, even though The Dreaming was a great album. Syrthiss 15:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 1/22, but not listed here, as far as I can see. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 13:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like someone had trouble telling the difference between an article and a category. --StuffOfInterest 20:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We don't need an entire category dedicated to one person. Sandro67 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Actually, we have hundreds of categories about individual people, but all those people have more articles than this one. - choster 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Telenovela Actors
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 15:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as telenovela-only actors. Every actor also works with theater, movies, commercials... If we were to create sub-categories to Actors for each especialization, most of the actors would appear in all sub-categories. Category:Telenovela actors, Category:Mexican_telenovela_actors, Category:Brazilian_telenovela_actors, Category:Venezuelan telenovela actors. --Abu Badali 13:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As far as I know, the following actors have never worked in theater, a movie or commercial:
- And... we have already created "sub-categories for each especialization":
- Keep Just a local variant of Category:Soap opera actors. CalJW 20:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated. Syrthiss 15:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Parent category is Category:Radio by country where fooian radio is the standard. Vegaswikian 05:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename but it should be Scottish radio, lower case. Bhoeble 11:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename to Maine state routes. Syrthiss 15:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maine State Highways is an incorrect term. All articles in this category are classified as routes in the Maine State Route System. Gateman1997 05:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I wish there wasn't "system" at the end but oh well it's still an improvement. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This term seems to get no google hits at all, except those relating to this discussion. (And only wiki mirrors seem to use the capitalised version.) Rename to Category:Maine state routes, following generic term in use in the state in question. Alai 04:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But then Maine State Routes needs to be capitalized. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? I just argued to the contrary; when this was nominated previously, another editor (who I've asked to comment here again) also argued to the contrary. Several more opposed this in the wikiproject-based discussion that was supposed to help settle this. Alai 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis that this is a specific hwy system. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? I just argued to the contrary; when this was nominated previously, another editor (who I've asked to comment here again) also argued to the contrary. Several more opposed this in the wikiproject-based discussion that was supposed to help settle this. Alai 04:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But then Maine State Routes needs to be capitalized. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was reverse merge. Syrthiss 15:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American radio is a redundant category, as Category:United States radio already exists and is well established. DHowell 04:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse Merge. One parent is Category:American broadcasting and the other is Category:Radio by country where fooian radio is the standard and this one and Category:Radio in Scotland are the only exceptions. Vegaswikian 05:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge as per Vegaswikian. "United States radio" is not normal English. Bhoeble 11:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge American is consensus except in cases of proper titles/names. Josh 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain from reverse merge proposal. "United States" as an adjective is normal English (espcially in cases where "American" could be misconstrued as referring to the continents and not just the US), and is my preference. However, I won't stand in the way a reverse merge, as long as these two get merged one way or the other. I will add a {{cfm}} template to Category:United States radio, though. DHowell 22:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Syrthiss 14:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Misspelled empty category, speedy delete. (If there is a speedy for categories, this should go there, but it doesn't appear that there is.) Herostratus 03:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is a speedy section above. Carina22 12:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was withdrawn. Syrthiss 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was created as a redirect from the already existing Category:Salesians, which already serves the same purpose and also meets the naming conventions, whereas this new category doesn't, and wasn't needed anyway.
Staffelde 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn. My mistake - the new category DOES have a dfferent function.Staffelde 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Modern surface-to-air missiles of India to Category:Modern Indian surface-to-air missiles
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was reverse merge. Syrthiss 15:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate categories, merge into the larger and more common form. Vegaswikian 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) specifically notes that military equipment is to be '... of foo' format. One could consider missiles closer to aircraft, which are 'fooian ...' format, but aircraft are the one oddball, as ships and military equipment are the other way. Thus I would put missiles with the majority and assign it '... of foo' format. NOTE the vast majority of missiles aren't very well categorized right now. They haven't gotten much love, since they don't fit neatly into either ships, aircraft, or vehicles categories, and even weapons don't give them justice. This is why the category names are not in line with policy...let's at least keep with policy on what we do change, and if need be I can submit a more complete list of renames to standardize all of the missile categories. Josh 15:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to create a list to the standard. I only made one nomination to see it I had it the right way. You are correct, there is a wide range of problems in some of these cats. Vegaswikian 06:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge as above. GCarty 09:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support the Reverse Merge. Vegaswikian 21:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.