Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 5

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by

Category:People who can't speak normal English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Nonsense category. RobJ1981 22:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP IT!!! It is a good article and needs to be here!!!Moof7 23:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete,
  WP:CSD#G10, so tagged. — coelacan — 00:32, 6 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as a non-notable intersection by religion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Religion usually has little impact on the careers of journalists. Therefore, this category is an arbitrary intersection of two unrelated characteristics, and it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 00:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed with Dr. Submillimeter. I could see "journalists of Roman Catholic publications" but this amounts to a trivial intersection. — coelacan — 01:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorization.--Keefer4 | Talk 10:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with Coelacan. Might make sense if the category is reorganized for journalists whose catholic faith has been significant in their journalistic work. Otherwise useless. Pascal.Tesson 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 23:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am sick of all these Roman Catholic categories being deleted for no apparent reason. Roman Catholic musicians, Roman Catholic entertainers, Roman Catholic comedians - all deleted! Why? Why no have a go at the Jewish categories or Muslim categories. I am putting an end to all this. I'll make certain this issue does not go un-noticed. sl84 19:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC) STAMPING OUT ANTI CATHOLICISM ON WIKIPEDIA[reply]
  • If you believe that there is a bias in these nominations, please point out the categories we are biased in keeping. Vegaswikian 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The bias in deleting Catholic categories was part of why I left last time. Category:Hillsong musicians, musicians specific to the Hillsong Church, is acceptable yet Catholic musicians isn't? There are Catholic newspapers and magazines so there are cases where the faith of the journalists is relevant. If you wish a retool to Category:Journalists of Roman Catholic publications that might be better, but this "let's delete Catholics first and always" is irritating.--T. Anthony 03:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The category is too small to be useful; it has only 2 entries and will likely never have more. It is redundant; its members are also members of Category:Prolog programming language family. Rwxrwxrwx 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Prolog programming language family. Pascal.Tesson 17:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sigma Pi brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-defining per numerous precedents. Haddiscoe 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Similar categories for other fraternities were already deleted in WP:CFD discussions. In previous discussions, the consensus was that membership in the fraternities (or other college non-sports organizations) was generally not a major characteristic of the individuals in the categories; the people were often much more notable for achievements after college rather than during college. More details can be posted if necessary. Dr. Submillimeter 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per many precedents. Doczilla 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Dr. Submillimeter AshbyJnr 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pro-choice movement to Category:Abortion debate

(also Category:Pro-life movement to Category:Abortion debate)

• Upmerge, POV-pushing is occurring in the parent category
  Post-abortion syndrome have been removed from Category:Pro-life movement and placed centrally in Abortion debate. Articles such as Reproductive rights are conspicuously absent from Category:Abortion debate, having been relegated to the subcategory Category:Pro-choice movement. Category:Abortion debate is susceptible to people categorizing only articles that favor their side of the issue therein, while neglecting to include articles relevant to the other side of the debate in Category:Abortion debate
  . The categories that are the subject of this proposed merge can be (and are being) used as hiding places.

Many people hold intensely emotional convictions on both sides of the abortion debate. Editors have already shown themselves to be prone to misrepresenting the abortion debate towards their POV, by categorizing only those articles that represent their point of view in Category:Abortion debate, and neglecting to include those that represent the other side.

Also an issue is the amount of crossover between these two categories. Are

pro-life activism such as sidewalk counseling, yet the first is categorized in Category:Pro-choice movement, the latter two, in Category:Pro-life movement

. They should be visible together.

Upmerge Category:Pro-choice movement and Category:Pro-life movement to Category:Abortion debate. Support keeping the four categories for pro-choice and pro-life activists and organizations. -- Joie de Vivre 20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge, exactly as nom suggests, keeping the organization/activist categories and making them direct subcategories of Category:Abortion debate. It makes sense to categorize the organizations like that, but the various topical articles aren't "owned" by either side, and the reader can benefit from a much more comprehensive parent category that groups the topical articles together. — coelacan — 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent summary. Joie de Vivre 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while i generally agree with the above comments, there are articles about things that are specific to pro-life (or pro-choice) movement that aren't people or organizations, such as
  March for Women's Lives (or Arch of Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and International Shrine of the Holy Innocents). It seems useful to separate those by pro-life or pro-choice, but there aren't enough for specific categories such as Category:Pro-life marches or such. Mairi 03:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Media of Cayman Islands to Category:Caymanian media

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match convention of Category:Media by country. jwillbur^talk 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cayman Islands footballers to Category:Caymanian footballers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match convention of Category:Football (soccer) players by country. jwillbur^talk 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Routes in Fairfield County, Connecticut to Category:Transportation in Fairfield County, Connecticut

• Merge, since the parent isn't exactly overloaded with articles, and Connecticut state highways directly includes all routes. NE2 15:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I took a break from creating the Category:Transportation in Fairfield County, Connecticut category and found the notice for deletion when I returned about an hour later. I expected to add a link to "Lighthouses in Fairfield County, Connecticut" which I'd planned to create (11 lighthouses; some no longer used) and "Railroad stations in Fairfield County" (about 15). Railroad lines and railroad branches would also be added (add another four or five), and future articles on the Bridgeport ferry, planned Stamford ferry, major bridges would increase it a bit more. I don't have a strong opinion about merging all these into one category. This is part of a wider organization of articles I'm attempting for Category:Fairfield County, Connecticut. It would be more efficient, it seems to me, to ask editors who know more about organizing than I do whether the approach I'm taking is the right one. Or is there a better forum for these questions?

I created "Routes in Fairfield County" because Category:Fairfield County, Connecticut was becoming too long at two pages (and growing -- at the present rate it will probably reach three pages sometime this year). First question: Is that too long or something I should not worry about?

I've created subcategories by municipality for the larger municipalities (20-40 articles in "Category:Bridgeport, Connecticut" (42 articles), "Category:Stamford, Connecticut" (46 articles), "Category:Westport, Connecticut" (30 articles)), but that can't be done for smaller municipalities (I may have stretched it with "Category:New Canaan" and "Category:Darien" -- how small is too small?) and I worry that people searching for, say

Bruce Museum

may forget what town it's in, so this was the first step in adding thematic categories for the county (other themes would be high schools, lighthouses, train stations, museums, etc.). Second question: Was this the right solution (assuming there was a length problem)?

As to specifically this category of Fairfield County routes, (third question)does the category make it easier or harder to find the article you want if you know what county the route is in but may not remember the specific route name? Or if it's easier, is it so much easier that it's worth having this more localized category? I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards or consensus on this, but I'd appreciate knowing more, either with comments here, or on my talk page. Noroton 19:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (self edit for clarity Noroton 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)) (self edit to fix links Noroton 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have no problem at all with

List of State Routes in Connecticut

should have at least a simple description of each route.

Just a minor note - you should use a

sortkey of either "Route 025" or "025", since Connecticut is not part of the name. You can see in Category:Accomack County, Virginia how the routes are sorted under "State Route". --NE2 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was:

Category:Cub Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

That was very rude how I specifically said that I would respond in 8 hours, that it is late at night in my part of the world and, others having no respect for that, go ahead and continue the discussion without my explanation, and lack of information behind my reasoning, I am posting another long paragraph explaining this so please wait. -PatPeter 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Should you not have waited to post your rationale instead of just putting it up here and adding a template to the category? - Alison^☺ 15:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I just wrote two full dam paragraphs explaining my reasoning, and, forgetting to copy my work, just lost all of it, so if you let me edit instead of jumping the gun I will tell you my rationale. -PatPeter 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And no, I will use this template, seeing as I will be ignoured any other way. -PatPeter 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I came across this category while sorting userboxes (and I wish to petition my prototype Wikiprojects to become official, where might I do that?) and I found this category. I promise you this category only had three members and two sentences of text.

At the time I did not know Categories for discussion existed, which I probably should have assumed but for lent I am trying not to make an @55 out of u and me, so I tried to speedy it, I also did not know that anyone could take off a speedy. Soon when I saw that it was no longer there and thought that an admin had taken it off without any consideration to my plea. Seeing that this had happened I took the three userpages out of this category to fight being rude with being rude, fire with fire, which I do not usually do, but that is why when I marked it again I put cheap admin powers and then changed it to no one in this category.

Overall, I would like to know how many users are required to make a category (I was not allowed to make CG:User fr-0 and that category had at least 50 people in it), why it says that that category is a spin off of the

bears when there is no such category, and I will add more comments as I review all other comments shot at me. -PatPeter 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Your fr-0 category was deleted as a

WP:CSD#G4 recreation of deleted content, the category and all 0-level language categories had already been discussed and deleted in these two discussions, not as underused but as useless. You weren't able to create the category again because it had already been decided to delete it, not because of the size. — coelacan — 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I keep reading why all -0 level categories were deleted and I still don't understand, could yuo sum it up in a nutshell? -PatPeter 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pervading belief that it is not helpful to categorize Wikipedians by what they don't do. — coelacan — 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can understand that. -PatPeter 18:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bear category was deleted for being empty. That category has no bearing upon this one, though, that argument is just a form of

WP:WAX. It's quite possible that no one feels like using the other category and some want to use this one. — coelacan — 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That is what I thought I just wanted to know partially out of curiousity. -PatPeter 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What you have not addressed is why you emptied the categories before trying to delete them, and then claimed they should be deleted because they were empty.[1] This is an abuse of process. You have also not taken seriously the fact that your previous nomination was speedy closed because of this abuse of process, and your continued, repeated deletion nominations are becoming disruptive. I suggest another speedy close, with prejudice toward any further nominations of this category by this user. — coelacan — 17:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong, I tried to delete the category before I emptied it, you obviously did not read my last post, that I did not know anyone could take a speedy off etc. etc. I'm going to save and read the rest of your posts. -PatPeter 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I read your post. You fail to understand that you cannot empty a category before, during, or after proposing it for deletion. You removed people from the category while claiming that it was already redlinked.[2] This is misleading if not deceptive. Either way it is not permitted. — coelacan — 18:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I know it is not accepted and I said I was sorry but I felt that at the time the deletion was disregarded or already in effect. -PatPeter 18:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're saying now that you're sorry, this would be the first time. That's good though. — coelacan — 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment you are the most observative person I have ever had the pleasure of arguing with. I good hardly contemplate being that good at arguing and presenting my case, though I put on the appearence that I am anyway.
    • But back to the discussion at hand is there a necessary amount of people needed to make a category? As I said the maximum was ever only three. -PatPeter 18:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, also what time is it where everyone is? When do you all sleep? What do you do for a living (because you all are always on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia doesn't bring home the bacon)? Are you all always online? -PatPeter 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there is no official minimum number. I will decline to answer your other personal questions. — coelacan — 18:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cannot remember the linguistic name for this but I never expected you to answer the questions, I was using the questions as a way of expressing my astonishment. -PatPeter 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rhetorical question". It would be best if you would simply comment on content, though, and not your fellow editors. — coelacan — 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I know sorry about that, and I can hardly believe that I forgot Rhetorical question, it is true that the older one becomes that he or she will forget the simple things. -PatPeter 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I know nothing about this category or the people in it. However, given the strange activity I have seen at WP:CFD concerning this category, I am inclined to leave a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for intervention by a neutral administrator in this dipute. Dr. Submillimeter 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. -PatPeter 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The category is too miniscule. These users should just be moved to Category:Gay Wikipedians -PatPeter 18:22, 6 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of the Kurds to Category:History of the Kurdish peoples

Propose renaming Category:Roma history to Category:History of the Roma peoples

Propose renaming Category:Bosniak history to Category:History of the Bosniak peoples

Propose renaming Category:Basque history to Category:History of the Basque peoples

Propose renaming Category:Khitan history to Category:History of the Khitan peoples

Propose renaming Category:Croatian history to Category:History of the Croatian peoples

Propose renaming Category:History of the Serbs to Category:History of the Serbian peoples

Propose renaming Category:Slavic history to Category:History of the Slavic peoples

Propose renaming Category:History of the Hungarians to Category:History of the Hungarian peoples

Propose renaming Category:History of the Turkic people to Category:History of the Turkic peoples

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency. There is no sense of consistency among subcats of Category:History by ethnic group. I am taking Category:History of the Germanic peoples as a model. -- Cat ^chi? 15:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I notice that some categories are "History of the ___ peoples", and others are "History of ___ peoples" (without "the"). Is there some basis by which a reader or editor would know whether to include "the" when searching for, or adding, such a category? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "the" may or may not be included. I do not mind either way. Inconsistency was merely my carelessness. -- Cat ^chi? 11:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What are the "Hungarian peoples", the "Bosniak peoples" and the "Basque peoples" etc? As far as I know there is only one

• Oppose Some of these might be appropriate, but other are not. This matter is too complex to be handled by a group nomination. Consideration may be given to renominating some of these separately. Haddiscoe 12:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That defeats the point of consistency. It is not complex at all. -- Cat ^chi? 23:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose without prejudice to relisting separately. I think renaming some of these makes sense, but not all. Lesnail 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That defeats the point of consistency. It is not complex at all. -- Cat ^chi? 23:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is complex. AshbyJnr 23:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I couldn't any complexity. If anyone claims that some of these are not appropriate, lets be more spesific; which one/ones?Must.^{T C} 10:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Lesnail etc. Never mind complexity, what about accuracy? More intelligent use and non-use of the terminal "s" might have saved this nom. Johnbod 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Is one letter the entire issue? We can rename it without the s. -- Cat ^chi? 00:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On relection I think each should be dealt with seperately, but they could be put up one after the other. I'm clear some should be singular; about others I don't know personally. Johnbod 00:51, 8 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: redirected. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Natives of São Paulo (city) to Category:People from São Paulo (city)

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as convention and in line with the change recently agreed for the parent state here; and keep the old version as a category redirect. VSerrata 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/redirect per nom. Haddiscoe 20:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/redirect Piccadilly 09:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A little confusing is that, some cat use of, some use from. Matthew_hk tc 11:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The convention of using from in residence cats (aka People from Foo) is set out at

Wikipedia:Categorization of people. --VSerrata 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge, see also

WP:OC. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Hamilton Bulldogs (1996-2002) players to Category:Hamilton Bulldogs players

• Merge, this was requested at the Help Desk by User:Chesterfield99. It appears that the MergeFrom category is redundant. I am not really into sports, so it may be a different team. I hope I am following proper procedure here, this is the first time I have done this. LuigiManiac 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Luigi,

It is the same team, is has been misrepresented as two teams - the players stats incorrectly divided. A previous wikipedia user chose to separate, but both the Team Records (Hamilton Bulldogs), and the League Records (American Hockey Leauge) recognize one consecutive team, with player stats being totaled. I have worked in sports for 12 years. Thanks,

Chesterfield99 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Chesterfield99 has been depopulating the MergeFrom category before this has been discussed. I had one of the pages on my watchlist when I found him removing the category (without explanation). I don't know how many other articles are involved. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is to separate franchises. The latter (ex-

ccwaters 12:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Chesterfield99 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had this discussion over a year ago and actually referenced AHL press releases from that time frame (see Talk:Hamilton Bulldogs, someone even acknowledges them). Since then league redid its web site and removed news prior to 2005. I tried looking for them. Ultimately, I'd love to skim through archives from the Hamilton Spectator when this happened.

I'm fully aware of the differences between a franchise and an affiliation. The 3 AHL Binghamton teams in the 80ies and 90ies were in fact one franchise that changed its name twice. The Fort Wayne Komets moved to Abany in the early 90ies before folding. The Rockford IceHogs' name and trademarks were sold and will be used when the old Utah Grizzlies franchise comes to town next season. Off hand there's been 3 incarnations of the Peoria Rivermen name.

Let me remind you that according to the NFL, the Cleveland Browns never left for Baltimore. The NHL ceremoniously declared the Ottawa Senators reinstated after almost 60 years. Things do get "revised" in the name of PR.

And yes, much like you did here with the category depopulation, I thank you for your expedient article merger.

ccwaters 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Chesterfield99 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there's more thorough discussion at Talk:Hamilton Bulldogs. 13:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: moved to article, now delete. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Museum of Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, this is an article in category space. No objection to making it an article, but it needs cleanup and may have some copyright issues. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Jewish Museum of Florida - The museum is probably notable, but this truly is an article in category space. This seems to happen a couple of times a month. I will suggest creating a special procedure to move things like this from category to article space. Dr. Submillimeter 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#New procedure for moving articles out of category space. Dr. Submillimeter 14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no reason for this museum to have a category. AshbyJnr 23:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Culture of West Virginia to Category:West Virginia culture

Nominator's Rationale: this category should be renamed in to match the other categories in Category:American culture by state. A previous CfD led to this anomaly. Conversly, I would also be open to renaming all of the other categories to match the naming convention established for WV in the previous CfD. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:West Virginia culture, or make an umbrella nomination to make the others match Culture of Foo. Either way is good, but all the states should match. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined towards the "West Virginia culture" as either option seems to be of equal quality and efficacy and, quite frankly, it'd be easier and we could all get back to the business of building a world-class encyclopedia. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stereolab singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Stereolab songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist, and discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Series broadcast by Hero TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to

list article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - This is the categorization of TV show by international broadcaster. It generally is an infeasible system, as many TV shows (particularly from USA, UK, and Japan) are exported to multiple countries and shown on many different "foreign" networks. This particular cateogry lists many Japanese TV shows that are shown on a Filipino network. Dr. Submillimeter 09:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename.--Mike Selinker 04:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nature reserves of Costa Rica to Category:Nature reserves in Costa Rica

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, convention of Category:Nature reserves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per convention of Category:Nature reserves. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Planned or proposed arenas to Category:Planned or proposed indoor arenas. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed arenas to Category:Planned or proposed indoor arenas

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity and to match Category:Indoor arenas. AshbyJnr 12:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 20:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - as renaming would mean we would need a category related to outdoor stadia as well? Rgds, - Trident13
• Strong rename Category:Planned or proposed stadiums already exists. Postlebury 10:54, 11 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal births by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category is heavily underpopulated and there's not enough famous animals born in the same year to make such a categorization useful. I suggest this category and it subcategories are deleted and that any articles in it are recategorized in the regular births and deaths categories. Mgm

• I think that's a reasonable point. No need to promote systemic bias for humans, we may have dolphin editors at some point. Silliness aside, merge as overly small. >Radiant< 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Animal births should be kept separate from human births, just as are the "births" of books, buildings, albums and everything else that is not a person. LukeHoC 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided All three options seem bad. Keeping these ridiculously small categories seems pointless. Merging to births of human beings isn't a great idea as it seems absurd to use the same cat for animals. On the other hand, I see no reason to delete the info completely... How about reorganizing the category (for now) by merging decades or even centuries (for the 18th and 19th century)? At least we get categories with more than a single entry... Pascal.Tesson 14:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that some animals live and die during the same decade, I think that such a wide category would fuzz the data and make it quite useless. — coelacan — 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't see what's wrong with merging birth years of non-human animals with human animals. It keeps the information, and when you're looking at a non-human animal's article page, you don't mistake them for a human, so there's no confusion here. Just go ahead and merge. — coelacan — 16:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The categories are small now because they are new. As time goes on, the categories will be populated and will be larger.
  Q0 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep All articles that aren't about general concepts need a category that tags its year of creation. For people, it's year of birth. For works, it's the year the work was created. For events, the year it took place. And so on. Anything that has a specific identifiable year of origin should be categorized as such. In the case of notable individual animals, therefore, "Animals births by year" is the natural, obvious counterpart to "Births by year" (which is specifically for people). Dugwiki 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing that says the "Births by year" is specifically for people. Animals are already categorized in the Category:Famous Animals (which is up for some form of renaming) or one of its subcategories so it's already clear they are an animal even if you put them in "1066 births". - Mgm|^(talk) 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are lots of racehorses that could be added for one thing. Haddiscoe 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Racehorses seem to have their own categorization at the moment. Either they need to be lumped in with the rest of the animals into general cats (1990 animal births) or (if the racehorses keep their own cats) someone needs to show that those other categories can contain more than 3 entries. It's pointless to categorize if each category has 1 or 2 entries. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but the subcategories need to be renamed for consistency's sake. -Sean Curtin 05:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, This category just completed a Keep and Rename less than 2 weeks ago. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Non-human animal births by year -- People are animals too, so as the category stands it would be appropriate to categorize George Washington in it. Lesnail 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, deliberately ignoring the PC point above. AshbyJnr 23:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a whole page of Presidential Pets that are famous, these all are candidates for this category, so that totally cancels out the "not enough animals" argument.Mastrchf91 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the human and animal articles separate - please. See
  WP:BLP considerations here. The year of birth categories are sometimes used to identify living people articles that don't have a WP:BLP template, and having animals in there messes this up, unless animals now have lawyers... (actually, that wouldn't surprise me for some pampered pooches). Carcharoth 17:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Humans and animals absolutely have to be kept seperate. The whole point of the people category tree is that it contains people and only people, and the births and deaths by year are part of that category tree. Ending that principle would make the work of WPBio harder, in particular our automation efforts and our management of
  Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. That said, I don't proffer any opinion on whether these should be kept or not and certainly don't object to a higher level births/deaths category which is outside the people categories and which contains animal birth/deaths and people births/deaths. --kingboyk 17:58, 10 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Satellite Earth Stations in Malaysia to Category:Earth stations in Malaysia
• Category:Satellite Earth Stations in Singapore to Category:Earth stations in Singapore
• Propose renaming, in accordance to
  earth station. - Two hundred percent 10:06, 5 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Japanese texts already exists. It is a category of texts written in Old Japanese. Recently Category:Late Old Japanese texts was also created. Texts for other linguistic periods needed a proper category. So I created Category:Early Middle Japanese, Category:Late Middle Japanese, and Category:Early Modern Japanese. In my haste, I accidentally neglected to word "texts". Thus, the move proposal to bring them in line with the other two. The intention of each category is to sub-categorize the various texts into their appropriate linguistic periods. Without the "texts" suffix, the categories are fairly vague.

• Propose renaming Category:Early Middle Japanese to Category:Early Middle Japanese texts
• Propose renaming Category:Late Middle Japanese to Category:Late Middle Japanese texts
• Propose renaming Category:Early Modern Japanese to Category:Early Modern Japanese texts

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, See above. Bendono 03:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.
  ^{Vivat Regina!} 12:06, 5 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:United States Virgin Islander people to Category:People from the United States Virgin Islands. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Virgin Islander people to Category:People from the United States Virgin Islands or the other way around

• Merge, I created United States Virgin Islander people without realizing the other category already existed. They should be merged, but I'm not sure which one is in the correct form. jwillbur^talk 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge per nom. Doczilla 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge to Category:People from the United States Virgin Islands.--Keefer4 | Talk 05:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:People from the United States Virgin Islands. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:58, 5 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.