Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 10
July 10
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (already emptied) --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Empty and redundant to Category:Italian physicians by specialty. Punkmorten 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Michael 01:16, 12 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cat should be renamed for consistency with other cats and to avoid confusion. --musicpvm 23:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Chicheley 08:28, 11 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename (I made a category redirect). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another category name with a demonym that needs renaming --musicpvm 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Chicheley 08:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Michael 01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support: Per nom. and general trend to move to "People from X". —Wknight94 (talk) 12:31, 14 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (empty). Conscious 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the Heretic and HeXen games are part of the so-called Serpent Riders series. In my opinion, the category should have the name of the series, not the names of the main games in the series strung together. -- De Zeurkous ([email removed]), Mon Jul 10 22:02:32 UTC 2006
- 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word "venues" is widely used in Category:Sports venues and its subcategories, but the word "Facilities" is not. Twittenham 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as nom. Twittenham 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Chicheley 08:27, 11 July 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.
Legend of Zelda deletions
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Legend of Zelda characters
- Category:Legend of Zelda places
- Category:Legend of Zelda villains
- Category:Legend of Zelda weapons and items
- Delete all per this discussion. It was decided to rename the categories, but as these are now empty, they can just be deleted. Road Wizard 20:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Michael 01:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, of course. Scepia 03:46, 15 July 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.
Legend of Zelda renaming
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Rename (with capitalised "The"). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename
Category:The Legend of Zelda to Category:The Legend of Zelda series
- Category:The Legend of Zelda places to Category:Places in the Legend of Zelda series
- Category:The Legend of Zelda villains to Category:Villains from the Legend of Zelda series
- Category:The Legend of Zelda weapons and items to Category:Weapons and items from the Legend of Zelda series
- Rename all per this discussion. Road Wizard 20:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quibble - Shouldn't the "the" be capitalised. ie. "Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series", or maybe that is "Weapons and items from the The Legend of Zelda series"!! Carcharoth 09:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want it capitalised I have no objections. Road Wizard 09:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Quibble above. Scepia 03:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename according to Quibble. Tryforceful 18:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename
- Category:The Legend of Zelda characters to Category:Characters from the Legend of Zelda series
- Category:The Legend of Zelda series characters to Category:Characters from the Legend of Zelda series
- Category:Legend of Zelda games to Category:Games from the Legend of Zelda series
- Category:The Legend of Zelda games to Category:Games from the Legend of Zelda series
- Category:Legend of Zelda media to Category:Media from the Legend of Zelda series
- Category:The Legend of Zelda media to Category:Media from the Legend of Zelda series
- Merge and rename all per this discussion. Road Wizard 20:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you meant for the games to be in categories? I changed it, above. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks for fixing them. I think trying to do 16 simultaneous page edits must be a little bit more than my brain can handle. Road Wizard 22:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quibble - Shouldn't the "the" be capitalised. ie. "Games from The Legend of Zelda series", or maybe that is "Games from the The Legend of Zelda series"!! Carcharoth 09:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want it capitalised I have no objections. Road Wizard 09:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that capitalization — (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 10:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you meant for the games to be in categories? I changed it, above. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Quibble above. Scepia 03:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename according to Quibble. Tryforceful 18:31, 15 July 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.
United States judicial cases
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus to rename -- so I looked up the practice at http://www.uscourts.gov/districtcourts.html. When used in a sentence, they are "United States district courts". Thus, it appears that the person that made each category had some clue about legal naming. Sure enough, the creator is a fairly newly minted lawyer, knowledgable about current case citations. To reflect the actual world, both are properly named. --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename one, but only one, of these categories, below. Frankly, I don't care which one. but it must be consistent.
Category:United States Court of Appeals cases → Category:United States court of appeals cases
Category:United States district court cases → Category:United States District Court cases
For the sake of consistency in capitalization, either both groups of courts should be capitalized, or neither.
Previously, I have nominated them separately, and neither suggestion passed. So now we can debate them together.
- Discussion on District Court cases: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19#Category:United States district court cases → Category:United States District Court cases
- Discussion on Courts of Appeals cases: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 30#Category:United States Court of Appeals cases to Category:United States court of appeals cases
—Markles 19:54, 10 July 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.
Television series by company
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting with additions
See this discussion for more details. - Lady Aleena @ 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Buena Vista Television shows to Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television
- Category:CBS Paramount Television shows to Category:Television series by CBS Paramount Television
- Category:Disney television series to Category:Television series by Disney
- Category:Fox Television Studios shows to Category:Television series by Fox Television Studios
- Category:FremantleMedia TV shows to Category:Television series by FremantleMedia
- Category:NBC Universal Television shows to Category:Television series by NBC Universal Television
- Category:Procter & Gamble Productions to Category:Television series by Procter & Gamble Productions
- Category:Sony Pictures Television shows to Category:Television series by Sony Pictures Television
- Category:TV shows produced/distributed by Warner Brothers to Category:Television series by Warner Bros. Television
- Rename all per nom. --musicpvm 19:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. This form will discourage people from categorising series to channels which bought them in. Twittenham 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. I like Twittenham's comment, too. I do have one question, though. Are these categories to be used only for television series? So no "movie-of-the-week" or miniseries would go here? If those are legitimate entries, then perhaps we should go back to saying television programs. Cheers, Lbbzman 22:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Miniseries would go into these categories in my opinion. Made for TV films would not however. - LA @ 05:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Michael 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. David Kernow 16:44, 12 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep, and not properly nominated --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a redundant category in my opinion, as there is already a category for destroyers. It is also only filled with Korean destroyers, so it seems that someone created it simply because he/she wanted to make those 3 Korean destroyer types "special". There is a sub-category, but that too is just for "Indian modern destroyers" and similarly very empty. Given that hardly anyone is using it, I don't see why it should stay. I think it should be deleted. John Smith's 18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I incline towards delete, but there are actually many categories in Category:Modern ships, yet no definition of modern is given. Twittenham 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It looks like John Smith's didn't actually tag the category page as cfd. The facts of category usage have changed since his proposal was made on 10 July and the active editors should be properly involved. By all means do that by making a fresh proposal to delete. --Mereda 14:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A large recategorization project is in progress on WP:SHIPS and Modern destroyers fits into the scheme. It will be filled in coming weeks and months. TomTheHand 15:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the nominator has been emptying this category himself to make it appear insignificant. The purpose of the category is to list destroyers currently in service, so it is not redundant. TomTheHand 15:18, 14 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge to Category:British Jews. Conscious 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we doing People of Jewish descent? Any reason to exclude Northern Ireland? This should probably (A) be renamed Category:People of Jewish descent in the United Kingdom (subcat of Category:Jews and Judaism in the United Kingdom), (B) Deleted entirely, or (C) merged into Category:British Jews, or (D) something I didn't think of. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:British Jews. This cat is unnecessary as the British one already exists. --musicpvm 20:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (and vote) - Jewish is an interesting case, blurring the line between religion and ethnicity. For that reason, it could well be considered possible to be of Jewish descent without being a Jew. This could make a merge as suggested above problematical. As such, I'd favour a rename to Category:People of Jewish descent in the United Kingdom, or possibly Category:British people of Jewish descent. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Jewish" can signify religion and/or ethnicity, so British Jews will suffice. Michael 07:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect Michael 07:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge If people aren't Jewish enough to be added to Category:British Jews, they don't need to be in any sort of Jewish category. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site and people do lose their ancestral ethnicities eventually. Honbicot 16:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment do they? hmmmm.....Carlossuarez46 21:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Duplicate. Choalbaton 14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per (C) in nom. Carlossuarez46 21:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per (C) in nom. GCarty 17:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy merge per (C)! Antares33712 16:58, 14 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be self-explanatory. kingboyk 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Matches category:Food and drink. Honbicot 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per above. Michael 01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.Abstaining pending discussion here. David Kernow 16:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC), updated 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Rename per nom. Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 12 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus to merge --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Portals has been turned into more of a category-of-thematic subcategories, which is great for organisation and navigation. However, I think religion portals being 2 levels down is too much. Category:Philosophy and religion portals makes good organisational sense to me so I propose merging the subcategory Category:Religion portals into it. kingboyk 16:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Religion is easily important enough to have a category and Category:Religion and Category:Philosophy are separate. Honbicot 16:07, 11 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (already emptied) --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV category. category:Sex symbols does not exist. I think it was deleted last year. Honbicot 16:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as POV per nom. --musicpvm 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Twittenham 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as POV per nom Michael 07:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as POV per nom GCarty 07:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as POV per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete silliness. Antares33712 16:59, 14 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the conventionally named category:Health in Brazil. Honbicot 16:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Chicheley 08:27, 11 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge per nom. Conscious 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needless splitting of category. It's also technically incorrect since many of these "locations" listed at the time of nomination are in fact organizations, objects or used in a larger context than just "Batman" comics. Once those are removed the category is underpopulated. CovenantD 15:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. - LA @ 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. --Jordan 18:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Cloachland below.--Mike Selinker 06:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge --Chris Griswold 16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into both Category:Batman locations and category:Batman. Cloachland 15:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge orgs into category:Batman, the rest into Category:DC Comics locations -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:53, 13 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (6:4), more appropriate to a list --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal removes the abbreviation and matches the related articles, but perhaps it should be category:Female American state governors and the others should be renamed to match? Chicheley 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename to one of the two options. Chicheley 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per original nom, asI suppose it's possible that there has been / is / might be "Female American state governors" of states in countries other than the U.S. Regards, David Kernow 01:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC), vote withdrawn 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Rename. The new name is better than the old. However, bit reluctant as to whether or not we should have this category at all. We don't normally split occupations by sex, we don't have Category:Male state governors of the United States and even in traditional female occupations (e.g. nursing) we don't have a Male sub-category.
- Rename but I would have no objections to deletion. Osomec 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but I would have no objections to rename. --JeffW 00:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting for further discussion. the wub "?!" 15:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As there have been at least 27 of them on this evidence female governors are not all that remarkable, and they will become less so. Honbicot 16:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no compelling reason for seperating by gender, per the info supplied by Honbicot. --kingboyk 17:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to the first one. The second one could mean North or South America as well. --Jordan 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not suitable for a category... where would the male ones go? A list article would be more appropriate with a suitable introduction explaining the relative rarity of female governors. -/- Warren 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Female state governors of the United States. --musicpvm 08:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't categorise by gender, and don't prioritise articles about women. Choalbaton 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename but open to deletion as well. It's not like this category is extraordinarily important to Wikipedia Antares33712 20:37, 14 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A better name for inclusion in Category:Mayors by country which is what they really are. The proposed name is shorter and clearer about the contents. If there are notable city managers they can be placed in a category for that title. But city leaders are generally know as Mayor. If this really is mostly about mayors, then why not use mayor in the name? If results of this nomination are positive, then the subcategories would need to also be renamed. Vegaswikian 06:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Mayors in the United States; it already exists, and keeps with the trend of preferring "X of/in the United States" to "American X". —Zero Gravitas 06:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- There appears to be a naming convention for the proposed form. Vegaswikian 06:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, move per nom. —Zero Gravitas 07:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There appears to be a naming convention for the proposed form. Vegaswikian 06:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- The subcategories should not be renamed. Therefore, the parent category should follow the convention for the children.
- We've already been over this state by state for the past 8 months:
- Some US states have Mayors only, some have managers, some have both.
- Some Mayors are executive, some are honorary, some are legislative.
- The law varies by state under the theory of home rule.
- Note that the UK and others also have Leaders of cities.
- Wikipedia is not the world legal body for enforcement of uniformity.
- I cannot find the discussion of any Category:Mayors by country decision that resulted in the spurious Naming convention. --William Allen Simpson 03:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, we should still have the mayor categories since almost everyone listed is a mayor and that is the common term in the US and around the world. They can be a subcat of leaders if that's the compromise point. Vegaswikian 05:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We've already been over this state by state for the past 8 months:
- Rename. "mayors" is much clearer than "leaders of cities". -- User:Docu
- relisted from June 16 for further discussion Tim! 09:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Parent is Category:Mayors by country, not Category:Mayors by nationality. Also oppose per William Allen Simpson. Lastly, we already have a Category:Mayors in the United States. Kurieeto 16:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mayors in the United States is now up for renaming since it does not follow the form used by the majority of the subcats in Category:Mayors by country. Vegaswikian 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Given the mass renaming proposed above, it is best to with draw this one for now. Vegaswikian 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Leaders of cities in the United States should be merged into Category:Mayors in the United States. As it is, ALL of the items currently listed are in fact mayors. The subcats should also be renamed as Mayors in X (state). That the office of mayor has varying powers in different places is largely irrelevent to categorization (if anything, those with a ceremonial mayoral position arguably should NOT be included in the category of "leaders of cities in ..."). If there ever arises a need to categorize City Managers, they should go into a separate hierarchy, with a head of something like "Administrators of cities in ..." older ≠ wiser 16:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this change to merge into Category:Mayors in the United States based on the umbrella change above for mayors to a new standard. Vegaswikian 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We need a category for mayors and maybe additional categories for other people. The situation in England and Wales is that some (but not all) towns and cities have lord mayors or mayors; they are usually honorary but recently some executive ones have been created. Where there is no mayor, there is an nonorary chairman. There is also a council leader. There is also an unelected chief executive, whether or not there is a mayor. --Runcorn 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting for further discussion. the wub "?!" 15:23, 10 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Already covered by Category:Companies of Switzerland. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some companies have hundreds of brands and Nescafé isn't a company. This is one of at least thirteen categories of its type - see Category:Brands by country. Honbicot 16:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn That's a good point, I didn't find Category:Brands by country. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, though, Nestle is Swiss but the brand is global. --kingboyk 20:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What is the precise criteria for a "Swiss brand"? Please see also: Category:Brands by company and Category:Nestlé brands. Kurieeto 00:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Honbicot Casper Claiborne 10:33, 15 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one other such category, and it used the format above. Honbicot 15:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as above. Honbicot 15:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Hibana 21:30, 13 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete (already emptied) --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a duplicate of Category:Government institutions? -- ProveIt (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Who knows? It is too vague to be useful. Honbicot 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are too many of them. It might work if there were sub-divisions. --Jordan 18:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep against nom Antares33712 16:57, 14 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a character is sarcastic seems POV -- some characters are sarcastic sometimes but not others. Chandler Bing? It's highly arguable he's not sarcastic but sardonic, for example. The category itself also seems of limited encyclopedic use. Tenebrae 14:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The "sarcastic" qualifier seems non-NPOV and unencyclopedic. Mário 14:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Honbicot 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - LA @ 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Jordan 18:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Anirvan 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, violates [[[WP:NPOV]]. Michael 01:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, insanely trivial; the vast majority of fictional characters have been sarcastic at some point, and it is almost never a defining attribute of the character. Serves no purpose.--SB | T 03:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Nathan (talk) / 05:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chaos syndrome 14:25, 17 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing and undefined category, seems to list real crime families/organized criminals, fictional ones, and movies about fictional ones. Doesn't seem to really add anything to articles. W.marsh 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - User has made multiple cats, all off them somewhat criminal related, and all of them extremely confusing. --Falcorian (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Twittenham 21:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 14:04, 12 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded disambiguation, I'm not aware of any other Space Marines that are divided into Chapters. Category:Chaos Space Marine Legions does not have a qualifier. Note that the capitalisation of Chapters is correct. the wub "?!" 10:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: unnecessary qualifier. Cheers --Pak21 10:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. - LA @ 18:32, 10 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed name is in the most common form for this type of category. Honbicot 06:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as nom. Honbicot 06:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as nom. Dahn 06:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. --Jordan 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. (chubbstar) — talk | contrib | 08:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Michael 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:People of the Eighty Years' War. David Kernow 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:32, 15 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete, but first check for copyvios --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic - do we need to create Category:BigDT's xFD nominations? BigDT 05:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Honbicot 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and doesn't match convention for Wikipedia categories either. 132.205.44.134 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Michael
- Delete per nom, but check everything in there for copyvios first (creator is currently blocked for copyright violations [1]) Chaos syndrome 14:24, 17 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a meaningful categorization, except perhaps for Jewish gauchos. But this category's only member is Kinky Friedman, who, despite his lovely schtick, is no more a cowboy than his fellow Texans who "know every trail in the Lone Star State, 'cause I ride the range in a Ford V-8". Pharos 03:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - LA @ 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Michael 07:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom (chubbstar) talk | contrib | 08:50, 11 July 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:Totalitarian and political youth organizations to Category:Totalitarian youth organizations
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"And political" is exceptionally vague, and marries two topics which have nothing in common. Dahn 00:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the category should be deleted instead of renamed. After all what is a "Totalitarian youth organization"? Along with that, the "Totalitarian" qualifier will be a source of disputes. Mário 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mário Honbicot 14:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I too believe that "delete" is the best solution. I initially thought nominating it in this manner would be less controversial, perhaps leading to a discussion on whether it should be kept at all (it seems I was right). Dahn 16:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If part of the name were to be kept Category:Political youth organizations would be better, but we already have Category:Youth wings of political parties and declaring youth organizations which don't belong to that to be "political" seems likely to be a rather POV matter. Twittenham 21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Political youth organizations in totalitarian states. --GCarty 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That just shuffles the POV issue onto the states. Honbicot 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mario. Choalbaton 14:05, 12 July 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.