Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 11

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 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 debate was rename Category:United States corrections' departments to Category:United States state corrections departments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States corrections' departments to Category:United States state corrections departments

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Adding "state" will make name less ambiguous and will mirror formatting of parent

Snocrates 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom & convention though perhaps some searching for a global less-wordy variant should be made for all of these...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:19, 12 December 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 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 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 debate was rename Category:Fictional Secret Service agents to Category:Fictional United States Secret Service agents. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional Secret Service agents to Category:Fictional United States Secret Service agents

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use full name of organization for clarity and consistency with parent category. Article is at

Snocrates 23:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:19, 12 December 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 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 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 debate was merge Category:Newcastle United F.C. captains to Category:Newcastle United F.C. players. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newcastle United F.C. captains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Overcategorized. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Newcastle United F.C. players as captains in English soccer (football) are players rather than non-playing individuals. OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per both. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 17 December 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 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 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 debate was rename Category:Ruskin College, Oxford to Category:Ruskin College, etc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ruskin College, Oxford to Category:Ruskin College

Propose renaming Category:Academics of Ruskin College, Oxford to Category:Academics of Ruskin College

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Ruskin College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Ruskin College

Nominator's rationale: Rename all, the main article is at Ruskin College, to avoid confusion with University of Oxford colleges (of which Ruskin is not one). Timrollpickering (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - good heavens, we wouldn't want to give that impression! Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 12 December 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 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 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 debate was rename/merge to "foo scholars and academics". Kbdank71 16:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Welsh scholars to Category:Welsh academics

Propose renaming Category:Scottish scholars to Category:Scottish academics

Suggest merging Category:Irish scholars to Category:Irish academics

Suggest merging Category:Swedish scholars to Category:Swedish academics

Nominator's rationale: Rename/Merge to convention of academics by nationality, and the categories explain thusly: "In Wales/Scotland/etc. scholars refer both to tradisitonal scholars as well as modern academics. While a fine distinction can be drawn between scholars within and outside of academia, but these categories are basically duplicative. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment these four nominations were merged by me to facilitate discussion. --Eliyak T·C 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Scholars who are not academics cannot be called academics. --Eliyak T·C 19:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, a subtle distinction could be made, but none of these categories is making it. Indeed, the 3 British Isles cats explicitly say they are not making that distinction, so they are meant to subsume the "academics" cats. If that's the way the term is generally understood in those places, then a reverse merge of the Irish academics may be in order and these 3 will have a different nomenclature and criteria than the other academics categories and probably should be dropped from that tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and put thinking caps on for how to recategorize those such as
  Bencherlite^Talk 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Don't lets split them like that, whatever we do. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole problem with many of the Category:Academics by subject categories -- it's split from scholars unnecessarily. --Lquilter 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Keep both or merge the other way to "scholars". The distinction is that academics typically include teaching as well as scholarship; while scholars need only include scholarship. So academics is narrower than scholars. But must academics are frankly known on campus and in the world for their scholarship, not their teaching, and some fields have scholars going back and forth between academia and practice. So "scholars" captures the most defining aspect of academics, and is inclusive of scholars who are not in the academy -- which is what most people who are not interested in the nuance will expect to see. --Lquilter (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are a great many of academics who only teach, but they are not usually notable. DGG (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is always the Category:Educators tree for them. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, my thinking at present is that it is more harmful for scholars to be unnecessarily and meaninglessly separated into Category:Academics and Category:Scholars than it is for some of them to have to have both Category:Scholars and Category:Educators categories. For that matter since some academic/scholars move in & out of academia, if we had both A & S categories, we would have to apply both to those scholars. It would be a mess. And of course the main reason anyone would use either a scholars or an academics tree would be to see the scholars/academics -- and they would have to go to two separate categories to do what they could do with one. --Lquilter 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Now that I've discovered Category:Educators with all of its sub-cats -- which I was unaware of previously -- I am starting to come around to Lquilter's view of things. I'm going to have to give this some more thought before I endorse that proposal; however, I will say that it would be very desirable to integrate the categories for scholars and academics in some fashion. Cgingold (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See ongoing discussion on this at Category talk:Journalism academics Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The proposal that emerged from those pages was to combine the two closely-related categories into Category:Journalism scholars and academics (variant: "Category:Academics and scholars of journalism"). I would submit that this would be a good intermediate solution especially for Irish and Swedish which are unnecessarily split right now. Names for those two would be Category:Irish scholars and academics and Category:Swedish scholars and academics. --Lquilter (talk) 23:51, 18 December 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 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 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 debate was delete (I took care of Bearcats concerns). Kbdank71 17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adventurers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Canadian adventurers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Czech adventurers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Swedish adventurers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - ill-defined and inherently POV categorization scheme. The lead article

talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• At least listify These categories appears to have been cleaned of the "social adventurers" that were there before, and the older ones in particular would be a difficult collection to re-assemble. Nearly all seem to fall under 1), often with a strong dash of 2) and 3). Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one person's "adventurer" is another's drug addict, pirate, explorer, or person of loose morals. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking only for the Canadian category, two of the eight articles currently filed there aren't filed in any other Canadian occupational category. I'm fine with the delete, but only if the deleter ensures that those two articles don't entirely disappear from the Canadian category tree. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 15 December 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 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 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 debate was relisted on dec 19. Kbdank71 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fan translated video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete A list consisting of games UNOFFICIALLY translated by ROM Hackers. It is not notable and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Newspaper98 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete copyrighted works that have been hacked or pirated are not for that reason notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The existence of an unofficial translation is a significant feature of a game, very significant with RPGs - which translations center around, which are unusable in a foreign language, and which almost all entries in this category are. The only avenue for international availability is definitely worth noting, and definitely a significant feature for games officially released only in Japanese. Not to mention that these things are huge, practically ubiquitous with emulator-using rpg players.
  The nominator seems to completely reject any legitimacy and significance unofficial translations may possibly have, but I can't grasp why. There are something like 1.5 million gamers willing to disagree, I don't know. It's a fact that unofficial translations can achieve and surpass the quality of commercial releases (Phantasy Star II being a particularily heinous example). That something "does not belong in an encyclopedia" is not an usable argument. First, we're the 8th most popular site on the Internet - if we allow that as a legitimate reason, we might as well save some time by blowing up the website and going home. Second, it's a tautology: it encompasses all possible problems, resolving to "this does not belong in an encyclopedia because this does not belong an encyclopedia." "Notability" applies only to determining which subjects should have articles - this isn't an AfD on Final Fantasy V fan translation or something - and I can't find him using any other definition. Noteworthy is another thing, but I believe I've just argued pretty well for these translations being that. --Kizor (talk) 03:22, 16 December 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 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 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 debate was upmerge per nom. Kbdank71 16:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colombian sodas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to

talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge per nom.
  Snocrates 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, there are actually several notable Colombian soft drinks. Albeit populations might be slow, there is a potential. --Soman (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, we don't seem to divide beverages (hard or soft) by nationality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as ocat. How can anyone consider a soda as being Category:Colombian cuisine? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 12 December 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 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 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 debate was delete. (Nothing to upmerge.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Types of Diet Coke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Diet Coke, simpler is often better. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to
  talk) 15:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom. Six items is enough to justify category, and chances are the category could grow in the future as new products are marketed.
  Snocrates 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Maybe add the 12 full-of-sugar types to make a more robust sub-cat. The main Category:Coca-Cola brands would still have over 80, which seems big to me. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a bad suggestion, but what would such a category be called?
    Snocrates 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Category:Types of Coca-Cola I suppose, or "and Diet Coke" - perhaps better spell it out for the audience here. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Coca-Cola brands per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since everything is already listed in the parent category. Nothing left to upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:54, 12 December 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 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 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 debate was relisted on dec 19. Kbdank71 16:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional racecar drivers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete First of all the whole subject seems very broad and secondly the many characters listed here seem to here solely on the basis of being a playable character in a spin-off game or mini game from thier original series.

• Delete some of these are usually connected with race car driving, but alas, any character who has driven one race car in any of its canon seems to fit the cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge, but do not delete. This is a fine category for people like
  Anakin Skywalker (a podracer seems like a car, anyway), but not for Crash Bandicoot and other video game characters who only incidentally drive fast cars. So it should get a thorough scrub and a new header.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Let's clear the category of the entries that don't belong, then see what's left. I can't imagine there are too many fictional racecar drivers that are notable enough to have their own article, but I'll withhold judgment until the cat is cleared. Pagrashtak 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but purge - This is a legitimate category that may interet somebody, but should be purged of Video Game characters etc. I would suggest that the category page should be provided with a headnote indicating its proposed scope, which should be literary, film, etc. persons for whom racing is a major activity. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 16 December 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 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 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 debate was rename Category:NSA encryption devices to Category:National Security Agency encyption devices, etc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NSA encryption devices to Category:National Security Agency encyption devices

Category:NSA facilities to Category:National Security Agency facilities

Category:NSA images to Category:National Security Agency images

Category:NSA operations to Category:National Security Agency operations

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. Expand abbreviations in titles per

Snocrates 09:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom & consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:04, 12 December 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 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 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 debate was rename Category:CIA training facilities to Category:Central Intelligence Agency training facilities, etc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CIA training facilities to Category:Central Intelligence Agency training facilities

Category:CIA front organizations to Category:Central Intelligence Agency front organizations

Category:CIA operations to Category:Central Intelligence Agency operations

Category:CIA domestic surveillance operations to Category:Central Intelligence Agency domestic surveillance operations

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. Expand abbreviations in titles per

Snocrates 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nom & consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:04, 12 December 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 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 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 debate was rename Category:CIA Medals to Category:Central Intelligence Agency awards. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CIA Medals to Category:Central Intelligence Agency medals

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per

Snocrates 09:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename to Category:Central Intelligence Agency awards which is broader than medals. That way if something comes along that is not a "medal", per se, we won't have to create a separate "awards" category. --Lquilter (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Central Intelligence Agency awards per Lquilter & per nom for consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:05, 12 December 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 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 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 debate was merge Category:BNP front organizations to Category:British National Party. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BNP front organizations to Category:British National Party front organizations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation in title per

Snocrates 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename otherwise confusing with Banque Nationale Paribas. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:British National Party, 2 articles only and the BNP cat isn't overly populated and we can get rid of the seemingly POV "front organization" label. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Carlossuarez46, but if the category is kept and renamed then use "organisations" for, erm, British organisations. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Carlossuarez46. Luckystars (talk) 22:06, 16 December 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:AFJROTC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category doesn't follow naming conventions. Contains only two articles both of which up for CSD. Sting_au Talk 07:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the speedy deletion tags were removed by someone who disagreed with that, so I've added Prod tags to them both. I don't believe that junior rotc organizations within individual high schools are notable enough for wikipedia articles, I'll AfD them if the prod tags are removed. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the prods were removed, but I've saved you the trouble of afd'ing them - did it myself. It really strains the community that we went through much angst coming to the conclusion that (generally) high schools are notable per se while elementary and middle schools aren't. Such was letting the camel's nose in the tent. Now, someone seems to be trying to get the whole camel through the tent flap by creating sub-articles about high school clubs. Aargh. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:14, 12 December 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 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 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 debate was no rename, by consensus and per nominator's subsequent withdrawal. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cricket people to Category:Cricket biographies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Surely it is convention to call a category "biographies" if it contains biographies? Using "people" for the title is inexact and potentially misleading. The Ghost 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I think "people" is correct because the category describes the people in the category, not the article types in the category. It's a subcategory of
  Snocrates 09:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - In fact biographies is used to refer to the books -- see Category:Biographies (books), Category:Biographies by subject, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose actually, the articles should be the biographies - which is why articles lacking major biographical details should be quickly expanded or deleted because it's silly that someone would read a biography of Joe Blow only to read "he played cricket for Devon" or "he voiced the monster in one episode of Scooby Doo" without biographic details normally to be found in an encyclopedia article: dates and locations of birth/death, some context of why the person merits note, but I digress.....why oppose? "people" is the norm for most activities, cricket doesn't seem to require a deviation from that norm. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Convention is as it is now, per all above. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator. I'd like to withdraw the proposal having read the above, all of which is good feedback. Thank you to all four contributors. --The Ghost | ^séance 07:39, 14 December 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 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 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 debate was relisted on dec 19. Kbdank71 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bitter-masking to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: This category appears to be for compounds that, when ingested, result in a masking of the taste known as "bitter". I would have suggested

Snocrates 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename to Category:Bitter-masking flavors. While it may not be totally correct, it would be clear what the intent is and it would appear to follow established conventions. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose perhaps I have read too many Agatha Christie books, but bitter-masking to my mind is not making your medicine taste good, but to mask a bitter taste (say, Strichnine) with something stronger but also likely to be bitter (a la Christie: oysters, coffee, and "tinned fish paste" have all worked). So while it's hard to describe "Oysters" as a flavor, "Coffee" could be (there are candies and cakes with that flavor), it wouldn't want to restrict it to "flavors" because the current contents aren't flavors in the normal meaning of the word: ever ordered a Homoeriodictyol ice cream? Coffee ice cream, yes, but not Homoeriodictyol. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment do these compounds block the bitter taste receptor, or tie up the bitter agonist on bitter compounds? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 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 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 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 debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Halo 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Over-specific category, dedicated to a single game, that only contains three articles. (It used to be larger before many articles were merged or redirected in the process of cleanup.) All three member articles are otherwise sufficiently listed under more general categories, and linked to each other in-text, so this category doesn't add much except clutter. — TKD::Talk 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion - The category has lost its original use. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lost its halo, so to speak :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Halo games 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that upmerging is needed; the eponymous Halo 2 is already in the parent category, and the other articles are about soundtracks, not games. — TKD::Talk 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:26, 12 December 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 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 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 debate was keep. Kbdank71 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives to Category:Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This would include all Delegates and Resident Commissioners. —Markles 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. More accurate and it's easier to understand what it means, too.
  Snocrates 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless someone can come up with a reliable (preferably an official government) source showing that the Delegates and Resident Commissioners are "members of the United States House of Representatives" which our article -lacking any in-line sources- says means congressman or congresswoman, that they are elected from various districts apportioned by census, yadda yadda none of which seems to apply to the Delegates or Resident Commissioners. We cannot call them members unless they are. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (changing vote) Carlossuarez46's point is a good one. In the U.S. Code, title 2, section 25, it distinguishes (by implication) between members and delegates: "At the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present ...". Title 48, section 1715 says this about the delegates from Guam and the Virgin Islands, "...the Delegate from each territory shall receive the same compensation, allowances, and benefits as a Member of the House of Representatives...". I think it may be best to leave things as is, but remove Resident Commissioners from the delegates category, since from what I can see in the U.S. Code they are very different positions, with delegates especially assigned "to" the House of Representatives but with Resident Commissioners assigned to the entire U.S. federal government.
  Snocrates 04:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Good research, Snocrates! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Moving Res. Commissioners out is going backwards! I'm just looking for a category that includes non-voting people who represent their constituents in the House. That's all. Perhaps either
    Snocrates or Carlossuarez46 can come up with a good name for them?—Markles 14:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment this category seems to be open to quite a clear definition of just including "delegates". You're right that the kind of category you propose would be useful, but I think we'd be better off just creating one from scratch than renaming this one. I don't have a good name at my fingertips right now, but with a little thought we can probably come up with something that will work.
    Snocrates 08:13, 16 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.