Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 25

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 --Kbdank71 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities in Palestine into Category:Cities in Palestinian Authority

• Rename as
  Palestinian Authority is a more accurate descriptor; "Palestine" refers to more than just the West Bank & Gaza. Tewfik^Talk 21:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, Why should Category:Cities in Palestine be different from Category:Cities in Mexico? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mexico is a country with well-defined territorial boundaries. "Palestine" is a little more ambiguous, with different sources claiming different areas as part of Palestine. Maybe try "Cities in the Palestinian territories" instead, since that pharse seems to be more geographically specific? Dugwiki 17:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that the country is named Palestine and it's category is also named Category:Palestine. We can still call the category Category:Cities in Palestine even though people disagree where the boundaries are. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Cities in the Palestinian territories. Category:Cities in Palestinian Authority is not good since that is a political orginization rather then an area of land. I don't think that Palestine and the Palestinian territories cover the same area. So this could be a name change that will be changed again as the politics in that area resolve the disputes. Vegaswikian 18:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Tewfik. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:36, 30 August 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 --Kbdank71 17:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mutant Liberation Front members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Not a major villain group. RobJ1981 21:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I agree, not a major villain group. However, I think it is a reasonable subcat of Category:Marvel Comics mutants. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep same reason --Exodio 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the above mentioned reasons. Also, it has more entries than some other so-called categories Tullyman 03:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's quite major in the Marvel scheme of things.--Mike Selinker 06:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Rather major when compared to the Alliance of Evil, the Neo or the Shi'ar Death Commandoes.--Gonzalo84 12:49, 29 August 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 -- Drini 04:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Fictional Mayors into Category:Fictional mayors[reply]

• Merge, Duplicate category due to incorrect capitalisation Tim! 20:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This may as well be
  snowballed. Good catch. Luna Santin 21:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy merge It's only an uppercase/lowercase thing. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge no debate necessary --Exodio 01:21, 26 August 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 --Kbdank71 17:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of the District of Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, it's empty. —Markles 19:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Exodio 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and mergefrom Category:Geography of Washington, D.C. as a better name. 132.205.45.148 02:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge from Category:Geography of Washington, D.C. per 132.205.45.148 Deleters: please reconsider Thanks Hmains 01:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The current convention is to use "Washginton, D.C." instead of "District of Columbia". To be honest, I prefer the latter as well, but there have been many discussions about it already with the consensus being in favor of "Washington, D.C." I'm not saying that it can't change, but if you want it to change, it's probably better to start at the article talk page rather than here. —Cswrye 07:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I disagree with Cswrye; there is no current convention, as the contention over the government category a couple days ago shows. There should be a convention, and since it should be in favor of the District, we should keep this cat around. --M@rēino 21:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Do not merge. Golfcam 22:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The idea of not having categories for Washington D.C seems pretty absurd to me. Hawkestone 11:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. They were not the same entity in history. The category was depopulated before nomination. If not, redirect to the one that is kept. Don't delete. — Instantnood 19:05, 2 September 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 -- Drini 04:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Animal noises to Category:Animal sounds[reply]

• Rename, Misleading term: they are not "noices", i.e., not random, meaningless sounds. The main article in this category is called List of animal sounds. `'mikka (t) 19:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Pet Sounds. Just kidding. Rename per nom. --M@rēino 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --Exodio 01:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 21:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above plus List of animal sounds. David Kernow 01:36, 27 August 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 -- Drini 04:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Heroes who turned evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete this member of a subjective series of categories. Category:Villains with good intentions and Category:Villains who turned good are already up for deletion. - EurekaLott 18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per other related discussions. --Cswrye 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a bad idea. Calsicol 13:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per my comments in the other discussions. Too subjective. Dugwiki 17:17, 26 August 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 --Kbdank71 16:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, found lurking in Category:Categories for deletion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If no reason to keep, delete as (currently) empty. David Kernow 01:37, 27 August 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 --Kbdank71 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, found lurking in Category:Categories for deletion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative delete as (apparently) being more or less redundant to Category:Prehistoric birds. I'm a layman, granted, but this one's empty, and I'm not sure if there's enough articles at this time to warrant a divide, and if it's true that there's very few or no triassic birds, as the out-of-place comment suggests... Luna Santin 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT: Correct me if I'm wrong, but AIUI birds did not evolve until the late Jurassic, so this will never have any articles. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 25 August 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 -- Drini 04:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, found lurking in Category:Categories for deletion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• [Keep]; granted this category only has two entries so far, but I'm hoping to write more articles on Master Drummers of Africa. It was only created a couple of days ago. Spaceriqui 18:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Master drummers per Spaceriqui below. Regards, David Kernow 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC), confirmed 01:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if kept. Vegaswikian 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a title.... The title of master drummer is given to a drummer who is recognized by other masters for his high degree of skill and knowledge in African drumming. The title itself is very much respected in the culture where it originates.... --Spaceriqui 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per David Kernow. I just added a link to the master drummer article. Since this seems to be listing people, it should probably be pluralized. Luna Santin 21:31, 25 August 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 -- Drini 04:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Images of Romania, convention of Category:Images by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Golfcam 23:00, 27 August 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Images of Bucharest. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, as the category contains images whereas the articles about buildings are in Category:Buildings and structures in Bucharest as they should be.-choster 17:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and choster. David Kernow 18:59, 25 August 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename:

1. Category:British Columbia senators to Category:Canadian senators from British Columbia
2. Category:Nova Scotia senators to Category:Canadian senators from Nova Scotia
3. Category:Ontario senators to Category:Canadian senators from Ontario
4. Category:Quebec senators to Category:Canadian senators from Quebec

--YUL89YYZ 16:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Agent 86 17:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Calsicol 13:59, 26 August 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 -- Drini 04:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Silent comedians to Category:Silent film comedians[reply]

• Rename, to remove the potential for confusion with Category:Mimes and to match the parent category Category:Silent film actors. Chicheley 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Chicheley. David Kernow 19:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - sorry, I created the category in the first place and should've thought of that. I usually hear them called just "silent comedians" by people who are silent film fans, but obviously on an encyclopedia you need a name that won't confuse anyone. Esn 01:37, 27 August 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 -- Drini 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already listed in Celebrity Poker Showdown. Unlike other Category:Reality television participants, they are notable for some other reason. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, kind of similar to all of those "guest star on x tv show" categories, not an important part of their career and better handled in the article on the show. Recury 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,The reason I created this category is to make people aware of celebrities participation on the show from their article without having to have prior knowledge or having had viewed the Celebrity Poker Showdown article, for instance if you were to look up the article on Amy Poehler you would be able, due to the category that she one of many celebrities that made the show, It’s not like a "guest star on x tv show" such as someone who guess stars on Baywatch, the guess star doesn’t make that show, but in this case the participates do make the show (everybody is a guess except the hosts and tournament director), similar to how shows like Hollywood Squares are up by their panelists, Kathy Griffin is listed under Category:Hollywood Squares panelists which is reasonable ,the category let’s reader find more about people who also make up the show much in the same way I was hoping to help people with this category. please reconsider, thank you --Sirex98 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a category for one show that just have guess maybe shouldn't exist after all. I took the vote too personal --Sirex98 17:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mention it in the prose of the article. Categories should be for meaningful/major groupings. -- nae'blis 02:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Post a list on the CPS page, no need for this category. RobJ1981 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Woe is wikipedia , if you make an effort make a contribution admins kill you, the vandals win! the vandals get away with polite warnings, all they seek is to destroy, I’m snake bitten, I quit, goodbye -- Sirex98 04:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry that was an overreaction,if it must go then so be it Sirex98 16:43, 27 August 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 (this was discussed already at Sportspeople by religion) -- Drini 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recat under Category:Protected deleted categories, to clear from the list. See discussion here. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Religion has no or low relation to being a sportsman. Pavel Vozenilek 21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Golfcam 23:01, 27 August 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 --Kbdank71 16:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_20#Category:Shady_Records. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 11:52, 31 August 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classical Dances of India to Category:Classical dance genres of India

• Abstain: Helping another user who keeps adding a {{
  move}} tag to the category's talk page. His/her edit summary says "'dances' should not be capitalized and these are dance genres, not dances". —Wknight94 (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename - seems reasonable. --Cswrye 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Cswrye and lowercasing. David Kernow 01:40, 27 August 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 -- Drini 04:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Kerala politics to Category:Politics of Kerala[reply]

• Rename, per convention for politics categories. Nathan Mercer 10:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 15:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --musicpvm 18:20, 25 August 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 -- Drini 04:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Karnataka Politics to Category:Politics of Karnataka[reply]

• Rename, per convention for politics categories. Nathan Mercer 10:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 15:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --musicpvm 18:20, 25 August 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UK category use "of" while the other subcategories of category:Local government by country use "in". The latter is preferable as each country has many local governments, there is no single local government "of" the United Kingdom, by definition it is the national government that covers the whole country.

• Category:Local government of the United Kingdom amend to Category:Local government in the United Kingdom
• Category:Local government of England amend to Category:Local government in the England
• Category:Local government of Scotland amend to Category:Local government in Scotland
• Category:Local government of Wales amend to Category:Local government in Wales
• Rename all Nathan Mercer 10:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be no "the" in the England category, but otherwise rename all. Thryduulf 11:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with amendment as per Thryduulf. Chicheley 15:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why are local governments at odds with governments, which use the "of" form? Tim! 17:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 23:32, 25 August 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local governments in Pakistan to Category:Local government in Pakistan

• Rename, This category should cover the whole subject area of local government in Pakistan but its present name implies it is merely a duplicate of category:Subdivisions of Pakistan. Nathan Mercer 09:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 23:32, 25 August 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 -- Drini 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Singular plural words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, This is a very trivial characteristic for a category. If fully populated (it currently contains only two articles), it would include a number of completely unrelated articles. musicpvm 09:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a categorisation that might be suitable for Wikitionary, but not Wikipedia. Thryduulf 11:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above plus unclear name. David Kernow 12:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overcategorization. --Cswrye 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization, and much less appropriate here than at wikt. —
  fgs 16:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Similar to Myst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Subjective category. If for any reason it is a keeper, it should be renamed to Category:Myst clones, as per Category:Joust clones, but I can't say how 'similar' or 'cloned' the games in this cat are. Marasmusine 08:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but if it is kept, rename per Marasmusine. --Cswrye 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's defintely subjective.

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 --Kbdank71 16:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theme music to Category:Theme songs

• Rename, As a subcategory of Category:Songs this should be renamed, otherwise albums are likely to end up here too. (Unfortunately this is already happening with soundtracks, where songs, albums, people and concepts are getting muddled up in the same categories). kingboyk 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and for consistency. --musicpvm 08:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per kingboyk. Category:Theme music could be a parent category...?  David Kernow 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC), stricken 19:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're willing to delve into the murky waters of the soundtracks/soundtrack album categories, I guess it could! :P --kingboyk 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not all theme music is a song, for example Doctor Who theme music. Tim! 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most of the present membership are songs, but making Category:Theme music a parent category of Category:Theme songs for the sake of those few that are not songs seems like creating an unnecessary extra layer of categoriz/sation. Regards, David Kernow 19:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tim. We just did the reverse rename in May. - EurekaLott 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tim. Thinking of
  X-Files, and Futurama. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep only music with a vocal part is a song. I agree with the concern regarding consistency, but I think this more likely means the parent categories are misnamed. —
  fgs 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Cult Cars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete. Too subjective, doesn't have as clear of criteria as
  Interiot 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • For what it's worth, some discussion has happened at the
    Interiot 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I am even actually unsure about the cult films too (if anybody would like to use its existence as a counterargument). Also merge the stub into cult following, obviously. Bravada, talk - 10:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept or no consensus, at least amend to Category:Cult cars per Interiot. David Kernow 12:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective. Although the VW Beetle probably deserves the reputation :) Tim! 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and rename to Category:Cult cars. I think this is a valid category. The problem is the definition in the article. The article should be cleaned up to provide a better definition and guideline. If that is not done within some reasonable period of time then the category should be deleted pending that cleanup. Vegaswikian 18:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, marketing terminology. Pavel Vozenilek 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 23:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - it's too subjective. // Liftarn 08:35, 29 August 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 -- Drini 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Ozzfest performers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, for the same reason(s) as this one and several others previous. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 05:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --kingboyk 06:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. --TheM62Manchester 10:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. However, an Ozzfest performers article might be a good idea. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:01, 25 August 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.