Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 12

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On March 11 one single user had suddenly created the category Category:Bank of Sweden Prize winners and moved all entries there from Category:Nobel Prize in Economics winners. The category should either be named Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel winners or Nobel Prize in Economics winners. Since the first is long and rather impractical, the latter should be used.

• Rename as per nom. Use the common name, not the official name, which is little known. Hawkestone 01:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : Category:Winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics...?  Regards, David Kernow 05:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. All the parallel categories have "winners" as the last word. Osomec 07:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to propose the grammatical improvement "...winners" → "Winners of the..." if you and others would support it...?  Regards, David Kernow 12:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If Osomec says it it must be so, but D Kernow's version is slightly preferable. Herostratus 07:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : The category should reflect the name of the prize, not give false information and the "common name" is also very controversial. Acceptable short names are either "Bank of Sweden Prize winners" or "Nobel Memorial Prize in economics". The name "Nobel Prize in Economics winners" gives the false impression that it is a Nobel prize. The changes were discussed in Category talk:Nobel Prize in Economics winners. // Liftarn

How about Category:Winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics...?  David Kernow 16:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent it would be "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics winners", but yes that is OK with me. // Liftarn 09:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the case, but see comment above. Regards, David Kernow 12:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and Hawkestone. Gene Nygaard 17:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....Although I agree that using "Nobel Prize" in the name may lead people to assume it was instituted at the same time as the original Nobel prizes... David Kernow 18:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. This is the common name for the prize any other name is likely to confuse most. Any questions about all of the possible names should be covered in the article and not the category. Vegaswikian 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The Lego Corporation wants us to call their products "LEGO bricks," but I still call them Legos. So sometimes the creator doesn't get their choice about what people call their product, even if they're the Nobel committee.--Mike Selinker 15:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Delanos to Category:Delano family
Category:The Rockefellers to Category:Rockefeller family
Category:Roosevelt to Category:Roosevelt family

Make the name fall in line with rest of Category:Political families of the United States. waffle iron 22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : There is (or recently was) a request to move Category:The Bonapartes to Category:Bonaparte, not Category:Bonaparte family. Is there a Wikipedia policy on how family names may be used as category names?  Regards, David Kernow 06:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom and make this the standard form. Osomec 07:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. What Osomec said. Herostratus 07:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The "family" appears to be omitted for noble families and included for commoners, but I think more generally the distinction is to be made between an article about the name and its history and an article about a collection of related people who share the name. Compare as examples
  Romanov, and Forbes family. - choster 18:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Category:American families has some more. -- User:Docu

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 15:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Tyrol to Category:Cities and towns in Tyrol (state)
Category:Cities and towns in Carinthia to Category:Cities and towns in Carinthia (state)
Category:Cities and towns in Styria to Category:Cities and towns in Styria (state)

[These regions all divided], restriction to state is needed for Austrian subcategories. Nikai 21:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If these categories are renamed, what other categories will be created to justify the disambiguation? - EurekaLott 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I created these category, and from what I've seen, adding "(state)" next to a category suggests that it shares a name with its capital, such as
  Styria (duchy)) or to areas formerly part of Austria, but now part of other countries (i.e. South Tyrol). The only category of the three with any potential problems would be Carinthia because the Slovenian province it borders is also called Carinthia (in Slovenian Koroška). In this case, adding “(state)” would not help with disambiguation. A simple sentence at the top of the category would probably be a better solution for that problem. --Inge-Lyubov 23:20, 15 March 2006 (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. Syrthiss 15:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of consistency with the other Austrian states. Nikai 21:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Osomec 07:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename, obvious. Pavel Vozenilek 21:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename When I created the category only Burgenland had an equivalent category, so there was no real form to go by; however, there is now, so it needs to be renamed accordingly. --Inge-Lyubov 15:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to avoid needless arguments with those who feel a compelling need to distinguish the town of Reading (pop. 232,662) from the city of Reading (pop. 237). Gene Nygaard 02:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 15:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circularly categorised, containing only one article, no subcats (... aside from itself), and crucially, no parent cat (...aside from itself). Delete, or other fix up if someone has a clear idea of where it ought to fit into the hierarchy. Alai 18:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, duplicate of Category:Library and information science. -choster 19:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – on the talk page, the creator says that they'd intended this category to be used for the field's journals. It at least need a capitalization fix, though. ×Meegs 23:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, suggest Category:Library and Information Science journals, otherwise (merge and) delete...? David Kernow 16:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Library and information science Osomec 07:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, then delete. This should be speedy IMHO. If noumber of fournals will grow a subcategory can be always created. Pavel Vozenilek 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Osomec. Her Pegship 23:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless and wrongly capitalised. Includes only one article. Deb 16:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. David Kernow 05:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. If it were to exist, should presumably be something like "Royal heirs who died in childhood". A rename to that would be OK. But as its near empty delete would be OK too. Herostratus 07:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also has wrong parent Category:Middle Ages. Do not rename - the category is abandoned. If someone has real interest in it he will create it and fill with enough of relevant data. Pavel Vozenilek 21:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged the template that was using this with the template that is using Category:Articles that are too long. - Beland 03:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carina22 13:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then, no longer needed. Herostratus 07:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:Australian Rules coaches. Delete ReeseM 01:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge if populated at end of vote, or delete if empty. Carina22 13:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Are there any other kind of Australian rules? If so, isn't this category more descriptive and more useful than without the word football? Bejnar 03:15, 14 March 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.