Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 20

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 for consistency --Kbdank71 16:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propose the following renames for consistancy and make this a standard:

• Category:Australian television stations to Category:Television stations in Australia
• Category:British television channels to Category:Television channels in the United Kingdom
• Category:Chilean TV stations to Category:Television stations in Chile
• Category:TV channels of Greece to Category:Television channels in Greece
• Category:Indonesian TV Stations to Category:Television stations in Indonesia
• Category:Television stations of Saudi Arabia to Category:Television stations in Saudi Arabia
• Category:Singaporean TV channels to Category:Television channels in Singapore
• Category:Indian television channels merge into Category:Television stations in India

Vegaswikian 23:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Woops, Category:Television stations in India already exists. Doesn't that mean a merge instead of a rename? wknight94 01:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Sorry. Vegaswikian 03:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge all CalJW 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - British people tend call them "Television Channels", not "Television Stations", therefore
  Brit tv 11:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - We have British actors, why not British TV channels? 9cds 12:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT a station is a licensed broadcasting location ; a channel is a frequency of transmission ; a network is a set of stations that air common programming (this would include ITV ; Channel 4 is a network) ; an independant station (in the true sense of independant, and not the convoluted ITV definition (an aggregate of affiliates... IOW the normal state of networks in North America) ) can be thought of as a network of its own ; several licensed transmitters can air on the same channel if they're geographically separated 132.205.45.148 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate proposal: keep present naming of Station vs. Channel intact pending further debate, but rename all those from the format "<countryish> station or channel" to "station or channel in/of <countryname>". Radiant_>|< 22:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And do the merge on India which has a cat for both? Vegaswikian 22:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, using whichever term is most prevalent in India. Radiant_>|< 23:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt. prop. seems like a good fix for now. --Heah ^talk 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this proposal. That will leave three categories that would be different and can be addressed at a later date. Vegaswikian 03:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternate for conformity's sake. Should be "in" rather than "of", as the UK cat has a subcat for channels of other nations in the UK. (eg Fox news network is of the USA, but is also broadcasting in the UK) –
    Brit tv 12:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Appose alternative - I can't really give any reason. I just still prefer the way it's said at the moment, it seems to sound better... -- 9cds^(talk) 13:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favour standardization; don't really care which way it goes. Leave the British category as channels rather than stations, though; Wikipedia conventions already allow for distinct national terminologies. But do standardize it on word order. Bearcat 09:27, 27 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, redundant with Category:Companies of Iceland. —PrologFan {Talk} 22:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wknight94 05:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 20:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom - N (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really, this is a MERGE into existing "Ethnic Groups" cat. Pointless distinction. Why does "Ethnic groups" get to survive? Because that is what ended up on the "Browse" interface. Again, on this subject area, most people cannot be bothered with the subtleties of specific-groups vs. how-to-group and there were many cat'ing errors. Throw the whole thing in one category at them and they will easily figure it out and not feel like they are being jerked around. -- Fplay 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, they made both kinds of stubs! Folks: When I am stubbing a few hundred pages, I am NOT going to split hairs. It is just an etho-thingy-somethin-or-another. -- Fplay 21:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose. The reason there are two separate stub categories is the same reason there are two main categories. Not all articles to do with ethnicity are specifically about an ethnic group.
  Multiethnic society. Category:Ethnic groups (a natural subcategory of Category:Ethnicity) should have the articles on specific ethnic groups: Berber, for instance, or Mestizo. This needs organisation, not merging. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose, per above, these are two different things. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Grutness.
  siafu 20:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Category:Ethnicity is a sensible parent to Category:Ethnic groups. - N (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inherantly a pov category and not just that but the artilces linked do not seem to have a logical connection. Articles such as

• Delete per nominator. Used for very motley collection of articles, unclear what it's intended for, and any tightened-up definiton I can think of would be POV. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Blank vote. Agree with nominator but I guess if I were a Kurd I'd feel it was unfair that Category:Anti-Semitism probably wouldnt lose a CFD.--Ezeu 21:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CoolCat. I see tendency to create low quality and but high bias anti- articles for many nations (like
  Anti-Polonism). Anti-Semitism is at least very widely used. Pavel Vozenilek 03:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, neologism at best, clearly POV at worst-- unlike anti-semitism which is a common term and has many related articles. Titular article is precisely one sentence long and does not provide any references using the term "Anti-Kurdism", the only reference is on the web - a site consisting only of photos of a firing squad with a title in Arabic (or could be Farsi, I'm not an expert).
  siafu 20:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 --Kbdank71 16:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Avoid abbrev. Radiant_>|< 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and clean up - I'm understanding from the contents that "LoPbN" is "Lists of People by Name". The first section is "List of drugs" mistakenly categorized here.
  siafu 20:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename in agreement with wanting to avoid abbreviations in titles. User:Ceyockey 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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 no consensus --Kbdank71 16:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A highly specialized category used for holding images on Wikipedia that aren't orphaned (e.g. are placed on some article) yet are processed somehow, e.g. for deletion. At any rate the current name is rather wrong, but "images in use" doesn't quite cover it either. Suggestions please? Radiant_>|< 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC) (nominated for renaming btw)[reply]

Keep as is - I'm not even sure what you really mean. This has absolutely nothing to do with "processing", but with images which are used for an article, but which may not show up as having links on their image description page. It's a verifiable declaration meant solely to protect the image from those who look for orphaned images (those not used directly in any article) to prune. AnonMoos 02:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No reason for change of name; too useful for a delete. ➨
  DVERS❞ 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It definitely needs a rename. The term "not orphan", to laymen, refers to a person whose parents are still alive. What is apparently meant is "Wikipedia images used on an article". Eschew obfuscation. Radiant_>|< 14:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What it means is "Wikipedia images used IN SOME WAY in relation to an article, but which may not show up as being directly displayed on any other page, and so are therefore vulnerable to showing up on the radar of 'Orphan-bots' which call attention to unlinked (and so apparently unused) images." Since the word "Orphan" is used with respect to unlinked images in other contexts than the name of this category, there's no need to purge it from the name of the category (though the name might be lengthened to make it less ambiguous). The terminology comes from the study of tree data structures in computer science: Tree (data structure). AnonMoos 18:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Query: How is this category useful, exactly?
  siafu 20:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Please read my previous comments above. AnonMoos 20:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So these images are, in fact, orphaned?
      siafu 20:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Whatever, dude -- it depends how you quibble over your semantics. Read again, and you may yet understand. Tolle Lege AnonMoos 20:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, "dude", I'm not quibbling over semantics, but if they're not linked to any articles, then they're orphaned. I just want to know how they're different from orphaned images such that we should have a category to seperate them. How about rather than talking down to a direct question, you answer it instead? It may help myself and others to understand.
          siafu 00:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I was getting annoyed because I don't know how to explain what I wrote above any more clearly in words of one syllable or less. If you have any specific query which does not seem to be mainly motivated by argumentative quibbling over semantics for its own sake, then I will try to answer it to the best of my ability AnonMoos 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • In most cases these are pictures that are linked, but with inline links that users must click, rather than the normal image display links. This is done for images that would otherwise overload articels, and for images with possibily disturbing or non-work-safe content, that are relevant to an article but need not always diaply with that article. it may be done for other reasons, too. The problem is that the normal automated methods for finding "orphan images" consider only the normal display links. DES ^(talk) 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. "Unorphaned pictures" seems like it works to me. "Not orphan"... that's silly. I would fit into that category.
  Matt Yeager 21:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename to "Unorphaned iamges" or "Unorphaned iamges without display links" if you want a fully accurate name, or even "Non-orphan images" but get the word "images" into the name to avoid confusion. DES ^(talk) 00:31, 22 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles already covers the category by a mile here. There's no use for the category. Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redundant, so delete. Radiant_>|< 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless. Pavel Vozenilek 03:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously each of these will have a disambiguation link already. Useless.
  siafu 20:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as being redundant. User:Ceyockey 05:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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 --Kbdank71 16:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly obvious. "Space" means five other things. The W page for Space means something else. The page is "Space exploration" and the cat should be also. Of course, have to fix up the Commons and blah blah blah. No worse than Art vs. Arts. This is too high-visibilty to get it wrong: it is in the Wikipedia:Browse stuff. This has to be recociled. If we must keep "Space", then we move the W pages around. Unlike Art vs. Arts, I will try to hold off for a day or two on this one. -- Fplay 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA! Lowercase "e" on explore. The cat already exists and is full of stuff. That is what we are going to unify it on today. No waiting. Lots of Commons stuff to fix... Folks: Do not even bother to comment: this is really a "category merge". -- Fplay 19:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And for anyone who would split hairs about exploration vs. astronomy vs. UFO's vs. I-do-not-know-what: Forget about it! No normal healthy user wants to be bothered with such hair-splitting. We only have two people in space right now and the probes are doing exploring and, very unfortunately, that is what is going to be happening maybe for a good long while to come. -- Fplay 19:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GROAN! Both exist, each with their own content, on the Commons as well. -- Fplay 19:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Also, please revert your removal of all the pages from this category -- don't do this until the discussion is closed. Rather obviously, Category:Space would include many things that don't in any way fall under "space exploration." For instance, Category:Space weapons, which I've just moved back. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some of the reversions myself, to demonstrate the wide variety of entries that do not fit under the title to which Fplay moved them. There are many more such. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above, and i would also like to request that you refrain from making changes until the discussion is closed- in this case, it hadn't even begun, and you had gone ahead and moved everything out of space and deleted the category! --Heah ^talk 14:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.
  siafu 20:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. "Space" and "Space exploration" are not synonymous; if there is confusion as to the usage of the categories this can be rectified, but merging them would not be helpful. User:Ceyockey 05:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I agreee that Category:Space should go. I think Category:Outer Space would be better and deal with the above criticisms.--Bkwillwm 00:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rather than renaming the category, I would suggest renaming the articles. Rename
  Mirror Vax 00:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Category:Space is a sensible parent to Category:Space exploration and a number of other categories. - N (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created it. But it's just an unnecessary subcat. Markles 13:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like overcat. Delete. Radiant_>|< 21:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the author doesn't even want it and if no one plans on further populating it... wknight94 01:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 20:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 --Kbdank71 16:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and parentless. Replaced by properly cased Category:Nursing schools in the US. (This was Cfd'ed a couple weeks ago but never listed here) wknight94 11:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wknight94 11:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and rename to Category:Nursing Schools in the United States. We already have Category:Law schools in the United States so why is this any different? Does it just need a few entries? Vegaswikian 00:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Delete. Missed the fact that there is a better named cat. Vegaswikian 00:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both into Category:Nursing schools in the United States. That is the correct form as abbreviation of country names are deprecated. CalJW 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a speedy request to renname Category:Nursing schools in the US above. If that is done, I think Category:Nursing Schools in the US can be simply deleted since it is empty. Vegaswikian 23:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per CalJW. Avoid abbreviations.
  siafu 20:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 --Kbdank71 16:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense category. Do we need categories that show the many ways you can make a bomb out of an animal by stuffing a grenade in it's ass? -- Jbamb 06:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful. CanadianCaesar 06:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there are this many articles on exploding animals, I don't see any reason not to put them together in a category. NoIdeaNick 09:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are lots of legitimate articles on exploding animals; why shouldn't they be categorized? —Psychonaut 09:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's redundant with the list on the subject and the article on the subject. Radiant_>|< 14:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Misnamed category—sounds like a joke. I think most of the articles under this category could be merged.
-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,-~-,- 17:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC) I wrote this before taking a good look at the category. RlyehRising[reply]

• Keep. There seems to be a whole series of articles on this subject. Though I will admit the title is laughable! Perhaps someone could come up with a less amusing and more encyclopedic title? After finding out that the term exploding animal was popularized by the columnist Dave Barry (see Exploding animal), I now agree that the category name is appropriate. RlyehRising 00:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  -,-~ ^R'lyehRising~-,- 17:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That is an awesome category.--Mike Selinker 18:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Name makes sense, too, as most of the articles start with the word "exploding". maybe it doesn't sound that encylopedic, but it is exactly what it says it is . . . --Heah ^talk 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Sensibly" populated. I am absolutely stunned, but it seems that there are quite a few articles on exploding animals (ah yes, the old Oregon coast
  siafu 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Funny. And dont forget to list the exploding-cigarette-frog, the exploding mosquito and the exploding ant. Maybe too the exploding lemmings ;-) - helohe (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propose the following renames as per policy and for consistancy:

• Category:World War II American submarines to Category:World War II submarines of the United States
• Category:World War II British submarines to Category:World War II submarines of the United Kingdom
• Category:World War II French submarines to Category:World War II submarines of France
• Category:World War II Norwegian submarines to Category:World War II submarines of Norway

Joshbaumgartner 05:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all. No argument.
  siafu 20:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 --Kbdank71 16:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. From its history, it looks like the author tried to replace this with Category:Convicted Italian MPs by emptying this category. wknight94 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wknight94 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcategorisation. Pavel Vozenilek 03:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 20:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 --Kbdank71 16:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and parentless. This also seems to be covered by Category:West Virginia State Highways. (This was Cfd'ed a couple weeks ago but never listed here) wknight94 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wknight94 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this does look like a redundancy. User:Ceyockey 00:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

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 --Kbdank71 16:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and parentless. This also seems to be covered by Category:Lost submarines by country. (This was Cfd'ed a couple weeks ago but never listed here) wknight94 04:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wknight94 04:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Joshbaumgartner 04:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 --Kbdank71 15:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and parentless. This also seems to be covered by Category:Ships of Thailand. (This was Cfd'ed a couple weeks ago but never listed here) wknight94 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wknight94 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Joshbaumgartner 04:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 --Kbdank71 15:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and parentless. I couldn't find any articles that fit. (This was Cfd'ed a couple weeks ago but never listed here) wknight94 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wknight94 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 --Kbdank71 15:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Webcomics, already depopulated. --Christopherlin 03:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Title is redundant, too. Sort of like internet web site. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 17:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 no consensus --Kbdank71 16:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The title implies that the all the articles (e.g. oats, rosemary, mistletoe) are accepted medication (they are not); I couldn't think of a better name for the category (the category Medicinal plants already exists)--CDN99 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This category has 4 subcategories (of which medicinal plants is one) and 86 articles in the main category; deleting it would eliminate any sort of classification of medicinal/psychoactive plants as such. The title of the category does not, imo, imply "accepted medication"- it does not say "FDA approved medicine", "Pharmaceutical plants" or anything similar. to limit "medicine" and "drug" to modern, western prescription guidelines seems to exhibit cultural bias and a disregard for the practices and knowledge of the vast majority of the world. (no insult intended towards the nominator- we are obviously just inferring different connotations from the title and approach Wikipedia from somewhat different angles.) If the name is decidedly bad, it should be renamed, but not deleted. --Heah ^talk 04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: why not have Medicinal plants as a category, and Psychoactive plants as a sub category? I think that would make more sense than Herbal & fungal drugs/medicines, Herbal & fungal stimulants, Herbal & fungal hallucinogens.--CDN99 13:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • cm: herbal and fungal hallucinogens is also part of the tripartite categorization scheme of
      Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants
      ; i think the more exact subcategories are useful. But renaming and some reorganization seems in order. (i didn't create the category, but i did rename it at some point while i was filling it in, and have to admit i was ignorant of MOS guidelines on category naming!)
• At the very least rename this to avoid ampersands and slashes. There probably is a point to this cat, and there probably are some articles in there that don't belong. Radiant_>|< 14:50, 20 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it is unclear what "militant" means, and the use of the word militant also raises serious POV questions. All of the groups listed, with the possibile exception of Puka Llacta, engaged in armed warfare. Even Puka Llacta supported the Shining Path in their brutal insurgency. Since this category is clearly being used as a place for groups under arms, I believe we should change the name to reflect that. Descendall 03:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's also unclear what "Leftist" means. In the United States, some might consider the Democratic party "Leftist". Also, is the United States an armed Rightist group when it has a Republican president and an armed Leftist group when it has a Democratic president? I'm being a little facetious (not to be confused with Fascist) here, but still.Hackwrench 18:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but armed leftist groups is still much better. I have no doubt that the vast majority of leftist groups that do take up arms, most of them communist, would be almost universially considered leftist, even by the group itself. We have a Left-wing politics, so I think we can have a Category:Armed leftist groups. "Militant" is much more ambigious, as anyone who ferverntly believes something is a militant. --Descendall 19:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there are also some good points at Category talk:Left-wing militant groups--Ezeu 20:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. 'Left-wing militant groups is vague. --Ezeu 20:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this needs a note indicating that it does not include organs of leftist governments. This category should not include the KGB, the Red Army, or the present day army of Cuba. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument.
  siafu 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename. The current name of the article is POV, Wikipedia is not Cynical 22:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Using "militant" as an NPOV alternative for "terrorist" (whose use I oppose) is feeble and makes it impossible to use the word in its real meaning. "Armed" is NPOV and accurately used. Palmiro | Talk 16:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Armed is ok but leftist is POV. helohe (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category just now, but the next two relevant articles I came across used the word "statistics" rather than "records". There are probably a good number of relevant articles, but they are scattered in all corners of the huge football category. I think a rename to category:Football (soccer) records and statistics will encourage people to populate this category faster. Calsicol 03:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom - N (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2005 (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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Duplicate. Merge. Calsicol 01:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge from 'Football Skills' to 'Football (soccer) tactics and skills'--Ezeu 20:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nominated - N (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All empty. Joshbaumgartner 00:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For reasons given.-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument.
  siafu 20:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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. Martin 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the article

• Rename, also matches prevailing form for other subcategories of Category:Subdivisions of the United States. - choster 20:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument.
  siafu 20:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 --Kbdank71 15:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Not a standard method of categorization. Joshbaumgartner 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How is this not a standard method of categorization? See the parent category,
  siafu 20:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question: why isn't this a standard method of categorization? --Heah ^talk 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lost sumbarines is a valid category. I had a relative who died during World War II when his submarine was hit.
• Comment What I mean by not standard, is that the vast majority of ships are not categorized by their fate. Additionally, lost is a vague term that could include all manner of fates that may befall a vessel. See
  WP:Ships for more info, but ships are categorized by what they are/were as opposed to events of their careers (including their fate). There are some lost submarine cats, but almost no 'lost ship' cats. Additionally, there is a Category:Shipwrecks which is more appropriate for sinkings and other disasterous losses. Joshbaumgartner 07:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Gene Nygaard 17:10, 27 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Near duplicate categories, symbols being more general. MeltBanana 00:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename unless there are enough symbols specifically known as emblems to be worthy of a sub-cat of symbols. Joshbaumgartner 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument.
  siafu 00:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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. Martin 15:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the term "Soviet" is not unambiguous enough. It's not just an adjective to the Soviet Union, it's also a noun, denoting a "council of workers", after which the USSR was named. I believe the proposed name makes it clear that the category refers to political repression in the Soviet Union, and not to political repression by workers' councils. Aecis ^praatpaal 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename clearer. Joshbaumgartner 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sumahoy 00:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument.
  siafu 00:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 --Kbdank71 15:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, only subcat under Category:Submarines by country not properly formatted. Joshbaumgartner 00:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -
  ^Θ 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename. No argument.
  siafu 00:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]