Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 15

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. Vegaswikian 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category only refers to computer and video games and not any other kind of games. Pikawil 23:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The whole thing should be removed, as it basically a poor derivative a much more useful LIST page of such games that was started, and furthermore they included. A catergory is harder to maintain, makes the assumption that each game's page even mentions the special edition, and further does not do anything to describe what makes ths special editions special. At the very least it's frusterating that a much less useful page using my own writing is allowed to exist where one I purposefully helped to create is not. Furthermore, the additions seen since creation do not even have special editions, it is indiscriminate in it's current state, and would balloon to massive proportions. The superior list page is coming back anyways after being worked out more. Deusfaux 10:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sure what kind of visitor would want to use it. --CTSWyneken 15:31, 22 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"weather modification" name is acknowledged name for these topics. Example of a book "Weather modification by cloud seeding, A. S. Dennis, Int. Geophys. Series, vol. 24, 1980 Pflatau 22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Even though google search brings more hits for "Weather control" over "Weather modification" weather modfication is used in scientific literature whereus weather control is more of "popular science" journalistic expression Pflatau 22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The alternative name is less hubristic. Carina22 09:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --CTSWyneken 15:31, 22 May 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 redirect Category:Vocalists, rename others per nom. Conscious 04:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the relevant categories use "vocalists", which seems to add little except an air of pretension. It is not normal usage and the great majority of the related categories use "singer".

• Category:Vocalists amend to Category:Singers
• Category:Vocalists by instrument amend to category:Singers by instrument
• Category:Vocalists by style amend to category:Singers by style
• Rename all Hawkestone 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all But Category:Singers by instrument throws me a little. Isn't a singer's instrument his voice? Category:Singers by accompyaning instrument isn't right though. Category:Singers by secondary instrument? --JeffW 01:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what's pretentious about "vocalists"; I kind of prefer it, but I'll abstain from voting. I will, however, suggest Category:Singer-instrumentalists by instrument as a solution to JeffW's question. Powers 02:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please also refer to past discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization. WikiProject Musicians has been building a categorization scheme for such categories; unfortunately, discussion has been slow due to a dearth of actual members. With the existing system in mind, reaching a consensus in policy here and now would be greatly helpful and appreciated. –Unint 03:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want my opinion, putting singers under Category:Musicians by instrument, while logical, isn't really where I would look to find them. I think they'd be better directly under Category:Musicians (or in both places). --JeffW 03:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, as for my vote. –Unint 03:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all incorporating Powers' suggestion. Bhoeble 10:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. If the majority of similar categories uses singers, it makes sense, and it does seem more likely for people to look under that. In response to having Category:Singers under Category:Musicians by instrument, I agree that it's a little wierd, but it does fit with the rest of the project. I'd be happy to see it also directly under Category:Musicians, even though it doesn't exactly fit with the rest of the project, I'd say this is something of a special case. A somewhat side note about the project. I believe the guidelines say that singer pages under "<genre> musicians by instrument" and "<nationality> musicians by instrument", and "<nationality> <genre> musicians by instrument" should be sorted under "Vocals", so this should be changed to match the new scheme (using "Singer" as the sort key). Also, any existing pages which have been sorted using "Vocals" should eventually be re sorted. B.Mearns^*, KSC 12:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all but leave Category:Vocalists as a redirect to Category:Singers -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per ProveIt ^(talk) Much easier on our readers. --CTSWyneken 15:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not all vocal music is singing.
  Monni 18:03, 22 May 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 Vote 3R 1D. Rename 2 for nom one for other, rename per nom. Vegaswikian 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian user categories should have "Wikipedians" as part of their name. SCHZMO ✍ 21:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedian fans of The Mysterious Cities of Gold (and move to external database...) David Kernow 01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Vizjim 08:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not about displaying one's outside interests where they don't help toward that goal. A userbox would be sufficient; an article-space category seems to be the wrong place for this.
  WP:NOT an arbitrary collection of trivia. Are any bio articles in WP because the person was a noted fan of MCoG? Barno 20:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: There are 4 User: pages and 2 userboxes in the current category. No bio articles at all = no notable people in this category = null category. No apparent value to WP's content, only to tiny subset of editor community. Let them use the existing userbox. Barno 14:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (c3). Conscious 05:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one user in category, redundant with Category:Boston Red Sox fans. Associated with Template:User RSN which I also proposed for deletion. SCHZMO ✍ 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge away. - EurekaLott 14:40, 18 May 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. Vegaswikian 18:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Empty. Not exactly sure what a "Google alumnus" is. SCHZMO ✍ 21:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm guessing they meant "former employees of Google", but then they could just use Category:Google employees. --Vossanova ^o< 13:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per --Vossanova Choalbaton 08:27, 21 May 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 user vanity cats. Syrthiss 20:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is associated with

• RenameQuizQuick 19:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To...?  David Kernow 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps QuizQuick wished to correct the grammar in the title. Note: QuizQuick removed the CfD template from the category page. Powers 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Conscious 12:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to external database or delete. David Kernow 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Users who are members of College Confidential Forum. I believe this is notable enough since there are over 55,000 members on the forum, many more than I can say for something like Wikipedia Esperanza.QuizQuick 17:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, someone did make an entry into wikipedia about CC forum, except someone later deleted it.

Here is the new one that someone is working on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Confidential

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. Vegaswikian 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Only 5 users in this category and unlikely to grow; Rebel Alliance is a non-notable forum with less than 150 members. Template:User RebelForums has already been deleted as linkspam. SCHZMO ✍ 20:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. Vizjim 08:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the forum isn't notable enough for Wikipedia, neither is the category. --Vossanova ^o< 13:18, 16 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons: 1) US->United States; and 2) Similar format of other subcategories of Category:Government of the United States. —Markles 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move per nom -CapitalR 19:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with two reservations: 1. is "Government" or "government" better? 2. Be careful to distinguish "Government reports," one-time documents issued by the gov't, from publications as well as reports about the government. Paul 20:23, 21 May 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 No consensus. Vegaswikian 21:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old name didn't cover the extent of the category anymore. Category Talk:Upcoming television shows and Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Television#Poll Temporal Issues there was a debate on wether to seperate the future TV products into multiple categories, but it was decided a single category would suffice and therefor now a CFR to have the Cat name better reflect it's collection of articles. The DJ 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose But that title doesn't mean anything. Upcoming television what? --JeffW 20:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The category currently includes upcoming televion shows and upcoming episodes of already running shows. If anything, the category might need to be split in two and given longer, more specific names, e.g., "upcoming television episodes." Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the above. David Kernow 01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Upcoming television programs to match precedent in category naming conventions. -Sean Curtin 04:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Upcoming television programs. Bhoeble 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Upcoming television programs per last two. --Vossanova ^o< 13:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Sean Curtin. --JeffW 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - also oppose the 'programs' because of the US-centric spelling. "Shows" is neutral. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both as per above. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per above. orudge 18:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've hold off commenting for a while on this, because i think it's a hornest nest that can't be solved to everyone's satisfaction :D My comments are these. Do with them what you like.

1. I oppose a category split (too little content, and episodes are already questionable)
2. not all programs are shows, so it's a bad name. You can call the Weather report a program, but it'll be tough to find someone calling it a show.
3. program vs. programme what to say. there's no resolution. i couldn't care less, for all I care you make it "program(me)"
4. perhaps "programming" is an alternative. this is usually considered to be the top-level of all TV content, though it's more of a process then a correct 'collection of content'.

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

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

The result of the debate was Reverse merge. Vegaswikian 18:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) I don't see a distinction betwixt these two categories and would like to request they be merged. I have no preference/opinion as to which category should be retained. Deejayk 19:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse Merge. Almost all members of Category:American musicians by state are of the form fooian musicians. Category:Musicians of Hawaii appears to be the only other exception. Vegaswikian 19:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per Vegaswikian. Postdlf 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirected Category:Musicians from Montana to Category:Montana musicians and updated all members.
  • Category:Musicians from Montana still needs to be deleted at the end of this discussion. A redirect does not need to be left in place. Vegaswikian 23:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've often wondered why we ever delete redirects, considering that there's a bot that automatically moves articles accidentally placed in redirects, but does not remove articles accidentally placed in deleted categories (or the categories themselves). Why shouldn't we be creating category redirects by the boatload to prevent accidental recreations and duplications the same way we do with article redirects? Is there something about the bot process I'm not understanding? Postdlf 23:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that editors should put items into the right category, or at least a parent of the right category. If their selected cat shows up as a redlink, they should realize something is wrong and fix it. The bot functions as a crutch to cleanup mistakes that should not be happening. However, your point is valid and maybe that could be the policy, even if it is unlikely for the category to be used. Since most editors don't watch cat pages, it might be wise to protect those pages also so that someone does not switch things when no one is looking. Vegaswikian 15:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, the mistakes shouldn't be happening. But even with categories that I've created, it often takes me a few tries when to remember the exact wording. Keeping the redirects will ensure that the mistakes will get bot-corrected if the contributor doesn't realize they've been made (or gives up trying to figure out the proper combination of proposition and capitalization used in, say, Category:National Parks of the United States). And yes, the redirects should be protected as a matter of course. Postdlf 16:08, 19 May 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 all. Vegaswikian 21:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalization rules, I think.—Markles 17:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename [all] per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 19:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move all to speedy. David Kernow 19:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move all per nom -CapitalR 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy since it is only a capitalization change. Vegaswikian 20:38, 15 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Like similar categories under Category:Legislative Branch of the United States Government. —Markles 17:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom -CapitalR 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - I looked at making this same nomination recently, but my research indicated that "Senate Chaplain" was the official title for this position [1], and as such, the current category title makes sense. Same for the House version of the Chaplain category. Lbbzman 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you look at that like you provided ([2]), you'll see they refer to him as "Chaplain Black" not "Senate Chaplain Black." Therefore, I assume his official title is "Chaplain."—Markles 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move. You are correct. And in fact, if you visit this page [3], you'll see, "On June 27, 2003, Rear Admiral Barry C. Black (Ret.) was elected the 62nd Chaplain of the United States Senate." Lbbzman 00:49, 22 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• U.S. → United States. This category should only contain courthouses of the U.S. federal government. That's why it can't be Category:Courthouses of the United States. Any other such name would also be vague or confusing. —Markles 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to Category:Federal courthouses of the United States like those above. SCHZMO ✍ 19:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. Make it: Category:U.S. federal courthouses to Category:Federal courthouses of the United States. —Markles 19:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Federal courthouses in the United States. That is the standard for buildings. Bhoeble 10:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be of not in. The point is their possession, not their geography. For example, a federal courthouse in Puerto Rico is of the United States, but may not be in the United States (depending on whom you ask, of course!).—Markles 17:44, 16 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for caps and expanding U.S. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 10:48, 16 May 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. Vegaswikian 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Third albums
• Category:Fourth albums
• Category:Fifth albums
• Category:Sixth albums
• Category:Seventh albums
• Category:Eighth albums
• Category:Ninth albums
• Category:Tenth albums
• Category:Eleventh albums
• Category:Twelfth albums
• Category:Thirteenth albums
• Category:Fourteenth albums

Excessive categorization; little is gained by comparing albums by their position in musicians' release histories. Also, where do you stop once you start making these? And do you extend the system to other media? (Category:Novels by number?) (Note Category:Debut albums, Category:Second albums, and Category:Final albums are being kept.) –Unint 15:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom (and why keep Category:Second albums...?) David Kernow 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Didn't we already get rid of some of these in a prior CFD? Postdlf 20:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nomHawkestone 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I could maybe see Debut albums and even Sophomore albums (probably dubious), but not any of these.--Mike Selinker 00:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted categories. The last CfD voted to keep only Category:Debut albums, Category:Second albums, and Category:Final albums of the list, so only those three should remain. -Sean Curtin 04:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I do apologise; I'm responsible for having created a few of these (Sixth, Eleventh, Twelfth and Thirteenth, specifically). I was unaware that the same categories had previously been deleted. Perhaps, once these have been deleted, a note should be added at Category:Albums by number (veering off at a tangent here, I think "Albums by number" is a really bad name for the category, but I can't think of a suitable, succinct alternative) advising against the re-creation of Third+ album categories. --CapitalLetterBeginning 10:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this, I recommend changing category:Second albums to category:Sophomore albums. This way, none of them has a number in the title. And then we change the ubercategory name to category:Albums by release sequence or something. Anyone like that?--Mike Selinker 14:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WikiProject Music says Don't describe an album or other recording as "sophomore" (...), as this is an American usage and is unfamiliar to much of our audience.. Jogers (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then WikiProject Music doesn't care whether there's a "Seventeenth albums" category, because the logical extension of "Second albums" is "Third albums," and so on. One or the other must give, and either "Second albums" should be deleted or changed to "Sophomore albums" to stop this from happening.--Mike Selinker 01:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, of course. Jogers (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re And do you extend the system to other media? (Category:Novels by number?) Looks like it's already here: see Category:First films. - EurekaLott 14:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really a nonsensical category. The phrase "debut album" is clearly understood to mean the first album by the performer. The phrase "first film" has no clear meaning. If we're going to have this, "directorial debuts" would probably be the best way to name it. Postdlf 14:52, 18 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• category:People of Anguilla to Category:Anguillan people
• Category:Politicians of Anguilla to Category:Anguillan politicians
• Category:People of Aruba to Category:Aruban people
• Category:Politicians of Aruba to Category:Aruban politicians
• Category:People from Macau and Category:Macau people to Category:Macanese people
• Category:Macau judges to Category:Macanese judges
• Category:Macau people by occupation to Category:Macanese people by occupation
• Category:People from Luxembourg to Category:Luxembourgish people
• Category:Luxembourgian cyclists to Category:Luxembourgish cyclists
• Category:People of Monaco and Category:Monacans to category:Monegasque people
• Category:Sportspeople of Monaco to Category:Monegasque sportspeople
• category:Monaco racecar drivers to Category:Monegasque racecar drivers
• Category:People of Grenada to Category:Grenadian people
• Category:Politicians of Grenada to Category:Grenadian politicans
• Category:Musicians of Grenada to Category:Grenadian musicians

Rename/Merge all to conventional naming for Category:People by nationality sub-cat pages. Mayumashu 14:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all. Postdlf 17:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Begging Can we please go back to the People of ... formulation? How many people are going to know that Monegasque is the proper adjective for things relating to Monaco? --JeffW 03:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, although "Monacan" is an acceptable adjective per the dictionary if we wanted to use that instead.--Mike Selinker 14:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as Begging, Serbia and Montenegro will never be the other form, what in the world is the rationale for swapping the form? --William Allen Simpson 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nationality adjectives for people was ground out over something like 6 pages worth of debate, and is a close to non-negotiatiable as anything can get here at Wikipedia (which is to say totally negotiable, just a pain in the ass to reopen). The Tom 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Choalbaton 08:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Foreigners in the Philippines. Conscious 19:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Foreigners of the Philippines" sounds very awkward. Ultimately, we'll end up having all foreign nationals in the Philippines listed under this category. It would be more appropriate to use "Famous Foreign Nationals in the Philippines" *Oppose Category names should never include the word "famous". I don't like this category name much though. Hawkestone 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete as below. There is already a Category:Filipino people by ethnic or national origin. If not deleted then I still oppose renaming. Hawkestone 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless you can come up with a name that denotes a cohesive category. What qualifies someone to be in or of the Phillipines, but still be a foreigner? --JeffW 20:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the renaming (ie. use of the word famous) is erroneous by conventions in place here. but there s no reason to delete as similar categories exist for other Asian countries (

• • I'll change my vote to rename if its renamed to Category:Expatriates of the Phillipines. --JeffW 03:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like it is for Filipinos abroad. At least it does to me, so I doubt I would be the only one to be confused. And confusion would lead to mixed usage. Bhoeble 10:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category:Foreigners in the Philippines. Bhoeble 10:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support User:Bhoeble's suggested renaming' (although i think Category:Expatriates in the Phillipines would be ideal) Mayumashu 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Expatriates in the Phillipines. --JeffW 16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category:Foreigners in the Philippines. Many people misunderstand expatriates, and I don't think it is necessarily accurate here. If someone visited the Philippines for a couple of years in the 17th century, when travel was slow, that didn't make them an expatriate. Carina22 09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Foreigners in the Philippines. --Howard the Duck | talk, 08:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 21:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

most Filipino directors do work on television, film, theater and commercials. may be too restricting. 7258 13:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This cat is part of a hierarchy. What else should this article be categorised as? It should be kept out of the parents (Category:Television directors; Category:Film directors or Category:Directors). Merging categories with little content into the parent will give confusing messages about articles appearing in sub and parent cats. I appreciate that it seems redundant, but it is useful on the larger scale of the hierarchy. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per The JPS. Hawkestone 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 17:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per The JPS. --Howard the Duck | talk, 08:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per HowardtD et al--Jondel 04:39, 22 May 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 from Category:Writers from the Philippines. Conscious 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Filipino writers" as a category is problematic since it is ambiguous. it may refer to the Philippines national language "Filipino." The problem is, the Philippines has at least 80 languages and many of these languages have their own literatures. Using "Filipino" to describe writers and literatures from the Philippines can be controversial, ambiguous and politically incorrect. Writers in the other Philippine languages may be offended. "Writers from the Philippines" is a more appropriate category to embrace all writers from the Philippines -- whether they are writing in that country's various literary languages: English, Filipino, Spanish, Tagalog, Ilocano, Bikol, Kapampangan, Hiligaynon, Cebuano, Kiniray-a and several others. This category does not offend those who are writing in the other Philippine languages.

• Keep Delighted to hear we have a politically incorrect category. It matches most of the other Filipino categories. A separate category:Filipino language writers category can be created in line with category:French writers and category:French language writers. Hawkestone 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; We have this problem with Category:Catalan writers as well, since the language and the region share the same name. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; The category was unilaterally emptied by 7258, who also prematurely orphaned it -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hawkestone; I think "X language writers" is the best way to solve this problem. Postdlf 17:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_5#Category:Philippine_writers -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's a little more thoughrough than just emptying the category. User 7258 has created a new category, Category:Writers from the Philippines, and moved all the entries over to it. If this deletion is not supported, the entries will need to be moved back from here and the new category removed, as this is more a rename action than a delete action. - TexasAndroid 18:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge, restore Category:Filipino writers to the way it was before. However, 7258 has a point; the explanation ought to clearly say that as member of Category:Writers by nationality, Filipino is refering to nationality and not to language. The explanation ought to also have links to Category:Filipino language writers, Category:Tagalog language writers plus whatever other languages are deemed appropriate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Filipino language and Tagalog language are virtually the same, so I'd recommend not to create Category:Filipino language writers. --Howard the Duck | talk, 12:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, repopulate, make a note on usage and delete category:Writers from the Philippines. Carina22 09:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Filipino writers, delete Category:Writers from the Philippines as per Carina22. Delete Rename Category:Visayan writers to Category:Visayan language writers, then merge rename Category:Cebuano writers to Category:Cebuano language writers, Category:Waray-Waray writers to Category:Waray Waray language writers. --Howard the Duck | talk, 08:42, 21 May 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 no consensus. Conscious 19:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

capitalization is incorrect. Esprit15d 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. The main article is
  Buena Vista Television; full studio name seems to be preferred in Category:Television series by studio. -choster 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Suggest rename to Category:TV shows by Buena Vista Television in attempt to stave off future CfR noms...?  David Kernow 21:59, 26 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct series name is "Power Rangers" not "Power Ranger", and to keep in line with other subcats. Supermorff 12:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 19:10, 15 May 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. Vegaswikian 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Unused. Conscious 11:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 12:20, 15 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least rename to reflect the actual content of the category. Possibly delete altogether (this looks more like trivia than useful categorization). Conscious 09:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• If kept, rename as per nom, but I would prefer to delete it altogether. It's trivial information for each player's article, and there are many thousands of players who have had testimonials, so it's not a particularly notable fact. — sjorford++ 10:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. It may be useful information to some. --Pkchan 10:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't really see the point - many players get testimonials, some don't, but it's a trivial fact at best. Qwghlm 11:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Aside: Is "Football (soccer)" used in this (and a few other categories I've seen) to placate non-U.S. folk?  No consensus to use simply "Soccer"?  Curious, David Kernow 12:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested in this too, since the parenthises are rubbing me the wrong way. Although, I would vote for the standard to be football, since soccer is not a big sport in the US, and elsewhere the sport is almost universally known as football, and the international organization (FIFA) uses the term football. I think if anyone is being placated, it's us Americans.--Esprit15d 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General consensus for a while has been to use the form "football (soccer)" in titles where the article covers the whole world, or areas where both terms are used (e.g.
    List of football (soccer) competitions). Where the subject deals only with one country, or there is no ambiguity, just "football" or "soccer" are used as appropriate (e.g. List of football clubs in England, List of soccer clubs in the United States). It does look ugly, I agree, but it was generally reckoned to be the least worst option, as just writing "football" is too ambiguous, and "association football" or just "soccer" were both unacceptable to many people. The good folks of WikiProject Football can probably furnish examples of actual discussion on the matter. — sjorford++ 13:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Thanks for that report, sjorford. Somehow I guess offering "soccer" to football fans or "gridiron" to football fans would (re)open Pandora's Box either way... Regards, David Kernow 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Qwghlm. Seems better as a list.--Esprit15d 12:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suggest that the use of categories is precisely to avoid lists, which are even less maintainable; see for instance this CfD, as well as the discussion here. With this category, at least we can have a low-maintenance mechanism to keep track of these players with testimonials for those who are interested in this subject. --Pkchan 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial attribute of a career. Hawkestone 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not category material. Research for this sort of minor fact in articles should be covered by search. If it can't handle that yet, we'll just have to wait until it does. Adding more and more categories to pinpoint every conceivable connecting fact in different articles is not the way to go. Bhoeble 10:47, 16 May 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. Vegaswikian 18:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Empty, blanked by creator, redundant to Category:Tamil Sri Lankans. Conscious 08:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 12:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Esprit15d 12:40, 15 May 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. Vegaswikian 18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Already exists as Category:Fermented beverages. Webaware 08:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 12:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Esprit15d 12:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nom. Palendrom 02:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a mental burp. SilkTork 16:07, 20 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category name should be more descriptive (see TSR) and match the name of the main article TSR, Inc. Conscious 08:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Lady Aleena 08:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Esprit15d 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Definitely the right name. (If it helps, I used to work there.)--Mike Selinker 00:16, 16 May 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. Vegaswikian 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Another lamentable example of the American habit of assuming that the rest of the world doesn't exist, or if it does, it is too unimportant to be worth taking into account. The three subcategories do not fit into the wider United States category system and each of them contains only one state or city subcategory, and they are already in Category:Restaurants in the United States.[reply]

• Category:Restaurants by region
• Category:Restaurants in the East coast
• Category:Restaurants in the Midwest
• Category:Restaurants in the West Coast

Delete all CalJW 06:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there (or would there be) sufficient restaurant articles to split Category:Restaurants by region into Category:Restaurants in the United States by state and Category:Restaurants in the United States by city, then recategorise the current Category:Restaurants by region subcategories accordingly?  David Kernow 12:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be quite a few resturants in the category (75), and even breaking them into three would be a substantial category. Also, I'm sure there are tons of resturants that haven't been tagged, so I think there are enough resturants to at least merit consideration, and not to be deleted outright, particularly since that isn't even an issue the nominator mentioned.--Esprit15d 12:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting a category doesn't delete the articles in it. Hawkestone 22:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does anyone even think that?--Esprit15d 14:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - these could probably use some renaming or better placement in the whole category system, but to delete them outright isn't necessary, considering someone could easily be interested in notable resturants of the East Coast, or Midwestern resturants. This is no way implies that the rest of the world doesn't exist. These subcats just need to be categorized under the umbrella of the US. Persons from other countries might find this interesting as well.--Esprit15d 12:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. I wasn't aware we categorized anything else by coast in the U.S. I don't see why we should start doing so, let alone with restaurants. Postdlf 17:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Add the by state cats as required. Most of the entries in the parent category and are really chains. So creating a Restaurant chain sub category would deal with most of the restaurants listed in the main cat. Vegaswikian 19:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Use the by state system as with any other topic. Hawkestone 22:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Bhoeble 10:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all please use state cats instead. gidonb 17:52, 21 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to concur with the format used for the other subcategories of category:regional geology. Sumahoy 03:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. CalJW 06:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and merge per nom.--Esprit15d 12:43, 15 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a category for people who were involved in a single wrestling storyline. All of these people are already in appropriate categories involving pro-wrestling and the WWE, the category is just overly redundant. Toffile 03:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 03:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CalJW 06:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oakster ^(Talk) 07:02, 16 May 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. Vegaswikian 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Phi Sigma Kappa members.

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename criterion for inclusion in WP is notability; thus there is no need for famous in the category. gidonb 17:55, 21 May 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. Vegaswikian 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Czech porn stars.

• Delete (empty) per nom. David Kernow 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Palendrom 02:37, 17 May 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. Vegaswikian 19:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable.

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--CTSWyneken 15:27, 22 May 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. Vegaswikian 19:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a category.

• Delete or convert into article. David Kernow 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The onus should be on the creator to restart it as an article if he or she wishes. Carina22 09:25, 17 May 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.