Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 13
April 13
[edit]- 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. Syrthiss 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this means actors from New Jersey, which seems over-specific. JW 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You're possibly right, as it doesn't tell you anything useful about an them as actors. But category:people from New Jersey is huge so it needs subdivision. Scranchuse 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If parent category is Category:People from New Jersey, rename above to Category:Actors from New Jersey...? David Kernow 16:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pretty meaningless, could mean just born there, then moved somewhere completely different, lived in New Jersey as an adult, performed in New Jersey??? Arniep 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are many subcategories of by state categories. They aren't the most valuable categories, but they make the by-state subcategorisation slightly more useful than it would be otherwise. CalJW 04:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. an alternative is to split up "People from state" by state region Mayumashu 03:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That information is not going to be available in all cases, it will be less accurate than state categories because people move around and in most cases is of negligible value anyway. Also, it doesn't fit into the way other articles are divided by geography. Finally, there are already categories by city and we don't need yet another tier. Bhoeble 11:17, 18 April 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 Invalid nomination, category not tagged. Tim! 10:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actors lumped together because they've been in different versions of War of the Worlds, including films, TV series or the Jeff Wayne album. JW 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivial connection. Bhoeble 09:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it is not worthwhile to categorise together two people because they happen to have been in two completely different adaptations of the same work. —Whouk (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 18:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refects what the category is properly used for. NZPA is the press association (like Associated Press but for New Zealand). Yet the category consists of members of the New Zealand Parliament press gallery (my bad). --Midnighttonight 23:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and listify. Some of the members are global and it woudl be a bad idea to have this type of category for every country. Scranchuse 02:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not an important attribute for any but local media outlets and maybe not for them. Bhoeble 09:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 18:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a list, List of celebrity guest stars on Sesame Street, which is a better idea than a category. JW 22:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The list is the way to go. Scranchuse 02:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 09:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , and delete the List of celebrity guest stars on Sesame Street Masterdarthsidious 18:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Masterdarthsidious[reply]
- Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 20:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Leads to needless, useless category clutter. -- Samuel Wantman 02:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nominator and Samuel Wantman. gidonb 02:37, 18 April 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 upmerge. Syrthiss 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contains only one European model government and one British one. In my view putting the UK category into a European category in the political field with so little justification is tinged with pro-EU point of view. The category is also incorrectly pluralised and capitalised. Upmerge to Category:Youth Model Governments (which is up for speedy renaming to category:Youth model governments. CalJW 21:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge Political articles should be categorised by country. Bhoeble 09:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I think it does make some sense categorise by larger region than just country, in this case there does not seem to be much of a need. Both members of the category can be easily found in tthe YMG category.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or rename. Category name is too vague and fatally constructed (India freedom would be better). This category is included in Template:India independence movement. I propose deletion or renaming to some more meaningful form. -- Darwinek 19:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed the template because it was causing the category to refer to itself recursively. Isn't this the same as Category:Indian independence movement anyway? --JeffW 20:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obvious POV. Freedom is not a word which can be used in a neutral fashion as it has been so much abused. CalJW 21:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per CalJW Bhoeble 09:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nationalist variant of Category:Indian independence movement Athenaeum 23:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 19:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made this, but I've since made a better-named category, Category:United States federal organic, enabling, and admission legislation. —Markles 16:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 17:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
|
Delete per nom. Since you already created Category:United States federal organic, enabling, and admission legislation you'll have to create another nomination for that rename. --JeffW 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 19:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subcat to the horridly overloaded Category:Characters in written fiction. But it only has one member, and while Category:Characters in written fiction could use some attention, I don't think this really does the job. - TexasAndroid 16:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 17:24, 13 April 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 Hill stations in Pakistan. Syrthiss 19:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalisation change as per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4#Category:Pakistani hill stations. Thryduulf 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It should be Category:Hill stations in Pakistan in line with the convention for settlements. 00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalJW (talk • contribs)
- I have no objection to that name if it is a standard. Thryduulf 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Hill stations in Pakistan Bhoeble 17:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename without incorrect capitalization, whether using "of" or "in". David Kernow 05:52, 14 April 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 relisted at April 23. Syrthiss 20:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first I was going to propose a simple rename to "Mountain monuments of the United States" due to format, but I realized there are only 5 items in this category, and only 1 in the parent category. Up-merging seems appropriate given there probably are not very many of these world-wide. — Eoghanacht talk 16:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per my nom. — Eoghanacht talk 16:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename category:Mountain monuments in the United States. These should be categorised under United States and there are too many monuments in the United States not to subdivide at that level. Bhoeble 17:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Personally I don't see the need for the by-country distinction. But if others do, shouldn't it be Category:Mountain memorials and monuments in the United States under a parent category Category:Mountain memorials and monuments as per the discussion below? Also, to a certain level it seems odd to categorize these, as there is not a corresponding mountain monument article as yet -- my point being is that it is an uncommon term that is undefined. Should the category only have memorials carved out of mountains, or would a mountain-top monument, such as Mount Soledad or Christ the Redeemer (statue) qualify? — Eoghanacht talk 18:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds just awful. Bhoeble 09:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Personally I don't see the need for the by-country distinction. But if others do, shouldn't it be Category:Mountain memorials and monuments in the United States under a parent category Category:Mountain memorials and monuments as per the discussion below? Also, to a certain level it seems odd to categorize these, as there is not a corresponding mountain monument article as yet -- my point being is that it is an uncommon term that is undefined. Should the category only have memorials carved out of mountains, or would a mountain-top monument, such as Mount Soledad or Christ the Redeemer (statue) qualify? — Eoghanacht talk 18:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 20:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 20:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Blanked by creator -- ProveIt (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 17:28, 13 April 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:Gaelic poets. - TexasAndroid 15:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would cat:List of Gaelic Bards be eligible for a speedy renaming to just cat:Gaelic bards for the reason that all cats are "List of"s and so it doesn't need to be mentioned, and capitalization? --JeffW 15:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/merge both to Category:Gaelic poets in line with the conventions. Bhoeble 17:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/merge both to Category:Gaelic poets. The supercategory for this category is Poets and it has two subcategories, Irish/Scottish Gaelic poets, so I don't see why the intermediate category should use the word bards instead. --JeffW 18:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 20:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bhoeble 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 20:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Made into article -- ProveIt (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Libertarian Party (United States) presidential nominees to preserve parallelism with other subcategories of Category:United States presidential candidates. -choster 03:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- note from closing admin - this was a re-creation of a category that was deleted back in february and listified. As such, I confirm deletion as recreated cat...tho choster's suggestion is a good one if *that* category was to be made. Syrthiss 20:25, 23 April 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. Syrthiss 20:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: Category:La Liga footballers, Category:A-League players; see below
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 20:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See below
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 20:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Do we really need this category? What purpose does it serve? It has over 500 articles (and has the potential to grow to thousands), and every single one of these players is already in a category (or categories) for that player's team(s). It's hard to imagine someone using this category to help them navigate through articles. There was some discussion on Category_talk:English_Premiership_players, but the category creator shut it down. DR31 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. These categories serve very little useful purpose; categorisation of players by position, nationality, team etc. make sense but not the league they play in. Category creator gives no meaningful reason for keeping either. Qwghlm 13:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong keep How on earth can anyone not think that grouping players with such a strong connection is useful? Bhoeble 17:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all I've just used it. It is the best way to access articles of current interest as the by club categories contain many articles about old time players, some of whom played for their respective clubs when they were not in the top flight. This will not grow as large as the by position categories and it will probably be a long time before it grows as large as Category:English footballers. Indeed it might never do so as more articles are created for level 2, 3 and 4 players. Populating this with club categories would lead to a dreadful degree of inaccuracy as we have promotion and relegation rather than a franchise system in England. Choalbaton 19:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not of "current" interest; the categoires are NOT "Current Premiership players", bur rather "all-time Premiership players". In fact, almost every player in Category:English footballers belongs here. In fact, if it was modified to be "current Premiership players", that could be a bit more useful... A lot, actually. DR31 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I originally wanted to keep this category, but now favour neither side. I created Category:Current English Premiership players if anyone thinks this will be of more use. Mark272 23:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not of "current" interest; the categoires are NOT "Current Premiership players", bur rather "all-time Premiership players". In fact, almost every player in Category:English footballers belongs here. In fact, if it was modified to be "current Premiership players", that could be a bit more useful... A lot, actually. DR31 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep These are international equivalents of Category:National Football League players. Scranchuse 02:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad example; that category has no individual players in it. DR31 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because the U.S. has a franchise system and England doesn't, which is actually a reason for keeping this as you can't access the information via categories for individual teams like they can in the U.S. Bhoeble 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad example; that category has no individual players in it. DR31 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but remove individual players from the category. ie keep the category tree structure A-League > A-League players > Sydney FC players , but agree there is no need for individual players to be in this cat as well as team cats. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We already have Category:Footballers by club which is divided into countries then clubs. Classifying by division is unnecessary, IMO. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Australia is not one of those countries listed there so these are not already in Category:Footballers by club. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 20:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely redundant categories; not actually a by-country breakdown at this level, either. Kirill Lokshin 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge - note that these are redundant because of the way Category:Militaries is structured; but if it was restructured these categories may make sense later. There's nothing inherently wrong with Category:Militaries by country (indeed, it may be sensible) but it doesn't fit the current structure. TheGrappler 14:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Scranchuse 02:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 09:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge into Categories:Militaries. Once the 'military of foo' cats are moved, the 'militaries' cat will not be over-populated, and sub-cats like 'armies', 'navies', etc. will be perfecdtly fine right at the 'militaries' level and not need a 'militaries by type' sub-cat to group them. Josh 03:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 20:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make this consistent with all of the other sub-categories of Category:Categories by country. Kirill Lokshin 12:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 16:18, 14 April 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.
Hollyoaks
[edit]- 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 hollyoaks, delete characters. Syrthiss 20:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Hollyoaks and Category:Hollyoaks characters as redundant. The latter no longer has any entries, and the former has only two articles (one of which is the main article) and this and one other subcat. —Whouk (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Category:Hollyoaks, necessary overcat for the subcat Category:Hollyoaks actors which is well populated. Delete Category:Hollyoaks characters - empty. Valiantis 19:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it worth having a category just to contain one subcategory? Category:Hollyoaks actors is a subcat of Category:Actors by series so it wouldn't be orphaned. —Whouk (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it would contain one subcat and two articles which otherwise would be less precisely categorised. It seems fairly standard to have a cat for a TV programmes once there is more than one relevant article that might be categorised there. Valiantis 23:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it worth having a category just to contain one subcategory? Category:Hollyoaks actors is a subcat of Category:Actors by series so it wouldn't be orphaned. —Whouk (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 20:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In football (soccer), whether a goalkeeper is any good at saving penalty kicks is entirely subjective - and all of them save penalties from time to time. There are no objective criteria nor any reliable statistics; different players play at different levels of the game and so no fair comparisons can be made. Delete. Qwghlm 12:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. DR31 (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Bhoeble 17:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. David Kernow 05:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete indeed POV. gidonb 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. That we know they're a goalkeeper is enough. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 22:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 20:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In football (soccer), there is no dedicated kicker in the side, any player can take a free kick. Whether a player is any good at taking free kicks is entirely subjective. There are no objective criteria nor any reliable statistics; different players play at different levels of the game and so no fair comparisons can be made. Delete. Qwghlm 12:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. DR31 (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Joe 16:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Bhoeble 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete indeed POV. gidonb 01:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although there is a dedicated free-kick taker in most teams, whether they're good or not is subjective. Free-kicks are not necessarily free shots, so whether a passed FK requires speciality skills is even more pov.Slumgum | yap | stalk | 22:53, 20 April 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 per Aloan. Syrthiss 20:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is a subcategory of Category:One-day international cricket, and there is a list relating to the topic. I believe the contents would be suitable in the parent category and this one is over categorisation, and I cannot see it expanding. If consensus decides to keep, can I suggest a rename to Category:One-day International records as the hyphen is standard form. Upmerge and delete. mattbr30 10:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and rename Category:One-day International records as it is also a subcategory of Category:Cricket records and statistics. Bhoeble 17:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, then rename to Category:One-day International cricket records. David Kernow 05:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and add Category:Cricket records and statistics to the articles currently there as appropriate. If kept, rename per David Kernow. —Whouk (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename Category:One-day International records Nathcer 13:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - it was recently decided that Category:One-day international cricket will be replaced by Category:One-day International cricket; however, the discussion ignored its two sub-cats, this one and Category:One-day international cricket competitions, which should both also be hyphenated and capitalised appropriately, and a super-cat, Category:One day cricket which should also be hyphenated. Can we do all of these at once? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ALoan's suggestion. David Kernow 21:48, 20 April 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.
Monuments and memorials
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 20:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at monument and memorial I am little the wiser on the difference between a monument and a memorial, and neither article addresses the issue. The main factor in determining whether an article is categorised as a monument or a memorial seems to be which category the categoriser was aware of at the time, though quite a number are categorised as both. There are seven things with "monument" in their name in Category:Memorials and three things with "memorial" in their name in category:Monuments, and that is only at the top level. Take the by country categories into account and the confusion is much worse (there are eight things called "Memorial" in Category:Monuments in London alone). I think that creating combined categories for "Monuments and memorials" offers the only chance of a robust and consistent system. Monument categories are more numerous, but if we simply converted the memorials categories into monuments categories, new memorials categories would most like pop up in the future and we would be then be back to square one. Combined categories would still allow one term or the other to be used where it has some official or specialised relevance, eg in Category:Declared monuments of Hong Kong.
- Category:Monuments --> Category:Monuments and memorials
- Category:Memorials --> Category:Monuments and memorials
- Category:Monuments in Argentina --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Argentina
- Category:Monuments in Bulgaria --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Bulgaria
- Category:Monuments in Germany --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Germany
- Category:Monuments in India --> Category:Monuments and memorials in India
- Category:Monuments in Italy --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Italy
- Category:Monuments in Japan --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Japan
- Category:Monuments in Lebanon --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Lebanon
- Category:Monuments in Poland --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Poland
- Category:Monuments in Russia --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Russia
- Category:Monuments in South Africa --> Category:Monuments and memorials in South Africa
- Category:Monuments in Spain --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Spain
- Category:Monuments in the United Kingdom --> Category:Monuments and memorials in the United Kingdom
- Category:Monuments in London --> Category:Monuments and memorials in London
- Category:Monuments in the United States --> Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States
- Category:Monuments in Georgia --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Georgia (U.S. state)
- Category:Australian memorials --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Australia
- Category:Memorials in Singapore --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Singapore
- Category:Memorials in the United States --> Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States
- Category:Memorials in Washington, D.C. --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Washington, D.C.
- Category:Monuments by country --> Category:Monuments and memorials by country
- Category:Australian monuments --> Category:Monuments and memorials in Australia
- Rename all CalJW 04:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all. Seems to be a good cure for the ambiguity betweent the two categories. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. A couple points. In the U.S. we have things called "National Monuments" which often do not fit any normal definition of "monument" that I know of -- it is a peculiar legal tool that the President can, without Congress, give special protection to federal lands by designating them as such -- but probably this exception should not stand in the way of the renaming. On another point, why "Monuments and memorials" rather than "Memorials and monuments" -- i.e. alphabetical order? — Eoghanacht talk 13:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Rename to alphabetical order Category:Memorials and monuments format. — Eoghanacht talk 10:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My instinct is to say that a monument is a type of memorial, usually some kind of distinct, stand-alone structure, whereas memorials could also be within or attached to a structure, or have no material presence, etc. I expect there's a slew of counter-examples. Regards, David Kernow 06:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem is that "monument" has multiple meanings. Very often monuments are memorials (and that is how they described in the monuments article. But they can also be boundary markers or natural landmarks. — Eoghanacht talk 10:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'd use "landmark" or the like for those, i.e. reserve "monument" for a memorial(-related) structure. Anyone else? David Kernow 16:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The main problem is that "monument" has multiple meanings. Very often monuments are memorials (and that is how they described in the monuments article. But they can also be boundary markers or natural landmarks. — Eoghanacht talk 10:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to "Monuments and memorials" because "monument" is broader, if there is any difference at all. Nathcer 07:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom and I have added category:Australian monuments, which contains one item. ReeseM 22:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 20:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The visitor attractions category is older and better populated. These are more or less the same thing (though the range of meanings of "landmarks" makes it very confusing as a category name). Merge CalJW 03:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 17:41, 13 April 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.
Ritornare a Roma (o, Sezione di Roma: Il Seguito)
- 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 renamed already. Syrthiss 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more parentheses from Rome. I have no strong feelings on this plural, but the only article with a plural is called Imperial forums. Rename CalJW 02:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename. Forums is the more common English plural, and it must very frustrating for anyone wishing to employ this cat. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest Category:Ancient forums of Rome, to differentiate from modern-day meetings there? David Kernow 16:33, 14 April 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.
Category:Baths (ancient) in Rome to Category:Ancient Roman baths in Rome;
Category:Circuses (ancient) in Rome to Category:Ancient Roman circuses in Rome;
Category:Theatres (ancient) in Rome to Category:Ancient Roman theatres in Rome
[edit]- 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 renamed already. Syrthiss 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parentheses are inelegant. Rename all. CalJW 02:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename, but cut off the redundant "in Rome." Ancient Roman baths, Ancient Roman circuses, and Ancient Roman theatres should suffice. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't redundant at all. The Romans built such things all over their empire but these three categories are specific to the city of Rome. CalJW 06:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I still don't see any reason to make that distinction. The categories are already quite underpopulated as it is, and we're certainly not going to make a category for every city in which the Romans built theatres, cicuses, and theatres. Until there are more articles to warrant a distinction between the different geographical locations of the structures, I don't see any reason for the category to be so specific. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't redundant at all. The Romans built such things all over their empire but these three categories are specific to the city of Rome. CalJW 06:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom, AmiDaniel's concerns nothwithstanding; only a matter of time before someone starts writing about (say) the Ancient Roman baths in Bath, etc. David Kernow 06:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename; per David Kernow -- ProveIt (talk) 16:38, 14 April 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 renamed already. Syrthiss 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this intermediate step makes navigation any easier as it is not a category I would expect to find. Merge into category:Ancient Monuments of Rome (which is up for renaming as category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Rome. CalJW 02:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge per nom. Bhoeble 17:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relate this move to those above? David Kernow 06:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both empty. The standard from category:Art museums and galleries in Rome already exists. Delete CalJW 02:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per nom. Bhoeble 17:45, 13 April 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.
Encore grazie per la visita!
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 20:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To bring the category into line with the others in Category:The Beatles. kingboyk 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- renamne as per nom. Grutness...wha? 02:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. —Whouk (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename --Mal 08:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 20:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current name is denounced on the talk page by a user called Manxy, who is presumably in a position to know. Rename CalJW 00:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- I agree with him/her. Rename. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as proposed. David Kernow 06:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes definitely delete Elections in Man but why even have a in the Isle of Man cat - no need. Just put it in Isle of Man cat.Manxy3 09:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So it will slot into category:Elections by country in the same way as articles about elections in the rest of the world. Bhoeble 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Man on its own is not the name of the place. —Whouk (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Vod. David | Talk 12:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 20:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- DLETE No criteria mentioned for what is a "real name" for a galaxy. The linked to page on seds.org lists designations, catalog entries, constellation's name with order by discovery etc, as "proper names". I do accept that the page lists the common names for the galaxies, mostly (although some are arguably better known as the Messier or NGC number). Zzzzzzzzzzz 01:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but maybe find a better name. I think it's appropriate to distinguish between the well-documented, "common" galaxies, and the random galaxies identified with numbers and letters. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the list provided as an external link is hardly inspiring for a "proper name" set of galaxies. 132.205.44.134 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Vegaswikian 00:01, 20 April 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.