Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

December 18

Category:People who have Directed Superhero Movies

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 delete. Timrollpickering 14:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat cruft. Things are going to real messy real quick if we start creating cats like this. We'll end up with articles that are more cat than anything else. "People who have Directed Comedies" "People who have Directed Romantic Comedies" "People who have Directed Horror films" "People who have Directed Zombie Horror films" "People who have Directed Romantic Zombie Horror Comedy Films" etc etc. AlistairMcMillan 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - beat to the nom by Al(thanks for the cleanup on the other page). Futher, this entire cat is redundant, as the directors are almost all in the categories of the films(Ang Lee in Cat:Hulk Films).
Delete - as per above - and the problem that with all of these we're getting into so much POV it would be impossible to moniter/verify accuracy. And, there's no category for Left-handed Scottish film directors who wear their clan's kilts on the set. ;) SkierRMH 05:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dugwiki 18:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "People who have directed seafaring movies", or "People who have directed martial arts movies" also come to mind (pirates or ninjas, anyone? : ) - jc37 11:00, 22 December 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 section.

Category:Fairy opera

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 delete. Timrollpickering 14:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, See discussion at the Opera WikiProject here. Basically, this so-called genre of opera does not actually exist, and is neither valid nor helpful, and should be deleted. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Samuel Wantman 02:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - the criteria for this is impossible to verify, especially as the genre is questionable! SkierRMH 05:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vague, unhelpful category rarely used in reference works. --Folantin 10:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WikiProject discussion. - jc37 11:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WikiProject discussion. - Lini 05:38, 23 December 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 section.

Category:Parishes in the Borough of North Cornwall

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 rename per creator. David Kernow (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parishes in the Borough of North Cornwall to Category:Parishes in North Cornwall

Rename, North Cornwall is not a borough. DuncanHill 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please change it! Talskiddy 19:02, 18 December 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 section.

Category:Parishes of in the Borough of Restormel

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 rename per creator. David Kernow (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parishes of in the Borough of Restormel to Category:Parishes in the Borough of Restormel

Rename, Current name makes no sense in English. DuncanHill 18:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry just my typo! change it! Talskiddy 19:01, 18 December 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 section.

OMG

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 rename per creator. David Kernow (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as Oh My Goddess!.--Slfbn1 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per Slfbn1. Xiner 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per wacky Japanese title. Recury 19:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename all. I am the original creator of the categories and I screwed up during the creation (not that it is all that important since '!' isn't too terribly critical IMHO). A bot can better handle this of course. --Cat out 00:37, 19 December 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 section.

Category:Scientific experiments

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 already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Requested by author. Science experiments already there. Chris 16:02, 18 December 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 section.

Category:Suburbs of Rockingham, Western Australia

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 delete. Timrollpickering 14:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redundant (and empty) category. Rockingham is itself a suburban area of Perth, Western Australia and hence all suburbs are Category:Suburbs of Perth (cf. Safety Bay, Cooloongup, etc). Orderinchaos78 15:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner 17:58, 18 December 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 section.

Category:65daysofstatic albums

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. Timrollpickering 14:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:65daysofstatic albums to Category:65daysofstatic releases

Rename, This band has released two DVDs which are currently uncategorised as they don't fit into the current category.
Speedy Rename per nom. Xiner 17:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just make a category called Category:65daysofstatic DVDs, put it under Category:Music videos and DVDs and put the articles in there. No reason to mess with the convention of Category:Albums by artist just for that. Recury 19:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Recury. ~ BigrTex 16:24, 19 December 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 section.

Category:People of British North America

Category:People of Brittany

Category:People of Dhaka

Category:People of Dominica

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. Timrollpickering 14:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename [all], Convention is to use People "from" rather than People "of". —Chidom ^talk 06:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename [all] per nom. Xiner 15:10, 18 December 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 section.

Category:People of Buckinghamshire

Category:Natives of Buckinghamshire

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 do not move. Timrollpickering 14:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[/merge], Convention is to use People "from" rather than People "of". —Chidom ^talk 06:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions:Categorization of people; specifically, Heritage and Residence

Comment "People of" is used as "People of FOO heritage" and "People of FOO descent", see People of index.
Otherwise, "People from" is used, see People from index.
"People from" is the convention; it shouldn't be changed for the eight categories listed here for renaming.
In common usage, "people of FOO" is present tense referring to the current residents of FOO, the "people of London", for example.
The use of "people from FOO" encompasses both the present and past tense—current residents and former residents or people who self-identify or self-identified with a location. For example, I'm a native of Virginia, lived in California for 18 years, and currently live in Illinois. I'm "from" all three places—"I'm from Virginia", "I'm from California", and "I'm from Illinois" are all true. However, I can only identify as one of the "people of Illinois"; it would be incorrect to say that I'm one of the "people of" either Virginia or California.
Associating anyone with a geographic place that they never lived in isn't proper categorization, no matter how significant their influence: "Residential categories should not be used to record people that have never resided in that place." See Naming Conventions, above.
A "native of" is someone born in the location; having a separate category is over-categorization. "The place of birth is rarely notable";see Naming Conventions, above.—Chidom ^talk 05:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this has come up before (someone tried to merge the "people of" with "natives of" category). If you look at those included in the category, it includes people who lived in or had a significant impact on Buckinghamshire, who weren't necessarily "from" there. Incidentally Buckinghamshire has a 'g' in it [corrected DK]. -- Roleplayer 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Category:People associated with X is the catch-all solution to these "born in", "from", "of", "lived in" etc nuances... ("People born in X" etc categories could be subcategories of "People associated with X".) Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"People associated with" would be too broad a category; it would also involve renaming all the categories listed at the links above, as they should all follow the same naming convention.—Chidom ^talk 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere that all these 'naming conventions' can be documented and agreed to? I see many changes that say the change is to follow 'this or that' convention, but I cannot find the conventions. Can anyone else? Maybe everyone who asserts a 'convention' needs to have a link to that convention or their assertion should be challenged on its face. Hmains 03:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above.—Chidom ^talk 01:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Matches the other county categories. Osomec 08:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? See the links above to all the "people of" and "people from" categories.—Chidom ^talk 05:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for breaching the convention for county categories. The renaming should be done for all of them or for none of them. Chicheley 11:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "convention for county categories"? I've cited naming conventions above; where's the one you're referring to?—Chidom ^talk 00:58, 21 December 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 section.

Category:People of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

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. Timrollpickering 14:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:People from the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Rename, Convention is to use People "from" rather than People "of". —Chidom ^talk 06:26, 18 December 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 section.

Category:People of Elizabethan Ireland

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 Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering 01:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Category:People of Elizabethan Ireland to Category:People from Elizabethan Ireland~~

Rename, Convention is to use People "from" rather than People "of". —Chidom ^talk 06:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn because this refers to a specific time period as well as a geographic location, it works to have it be "of"; I'm not sure how this fits with the convention referenced above, however. Landowners and public officials in Ireland during the time would properly belong in the category, even though their primary identification is otherwise. (Walter Raleigh belongs as a landowner, even though he was patently English.) This may be one of the categories that really does need renaming to avoid confusion, or it needs to be re-thought. Why is it important to have a category that includes Walter Raleigh (English) and James FitzMaurice FitzGerald (Irish to the core)? I don't see the need for a category for such associations, but maybe I'm missing something.—Chidom ^talk 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename: the category contains people who were not from Ireland, but who served there.--Shtove 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe split rather than no rename – or rename to Category:People associated with Elizabethan Ireland...? (See #Category:Natives of Buckinghamshire above). David Kernow (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they served there, for however briefly, one could say they were "from" there. The category may need to be redefined to exclude such people, it doesn't make sense to lump people with a marginal association with Ireland into a broader Ireland-related category of people. Walter Raleigh although English, could properly be said to be "from" Ireland, as he owned property there and lived there. Likewise, Humphrey Gilbert, having held office in Ireland, could be characterized as being "from" there. Splitting the category would most probably be over-categorization.

Also, see my comments under People of Buckinghamshire above.—Chidom ^talk 04:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wholly convinced by these "People from Place" categories... For instance, I imagine many folk would be puzzled to hear Walter Raleigh being described as "from Ireland", as I guess they'd say he was born and raised in England; or, to try something more contemporary, would we describe someone who visited Iraq for a few months (or even years) as being "from" Iraq...? Although it's somewhat abstract, "People associated with Place" is the only formulation I've seen to date that avoids the nuances/implications/etc folk may or may not draw from "People from" or similar formulations. If "People born in", "People raised in", etc, etc means too many categories (as I suspect it does), "People from" is too ambiguous and "People associated with" is too abstract or the like, perhaps the message is that none of these work as categories... Yours, David (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to say that people are "from" a place where they have served. On that basis all the American troops presently in Iraq are "from Iraq"! Chicheley 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The nomination is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the category. Chicheley 11:42, 20 December 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 section.

Category:Tennessee Cities and Towns

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 delete. Timrollpickering 14:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category already exists at Category:Cities in Tennessee. The category was created today. •DanMS 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Convention is "Cities in...."; this category is redundant as per nomination. Only one article seems to have been tagged with link to this category; the remaining cities are just a list created on the category page.—Chidom ^talk 06:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OBriain 07:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner 15:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. B e arly 541 15:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 18:55, 18 December 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 section.

Category:Northern Irish women

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 delete. Timrollpickering 14:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well established convention against categorization by nationality and gender. Mark as permanently deleted. Sumahoy 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Samuel Wantman 02:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 08:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a recreation of an already delted category, isn't it? Speedy. --Mais oui! 14:09, 20 December 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 section.

Category:Stanford University a cappella groups and Category:Cornell University a cappella groups

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 delete all. Timrollpickering 14:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough notable a capella groups at these universities to justify a separate category. The regulat college a cappella group is sufficient. The Cornell one is a repost. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm from Cornell, and I think this is overcategorization. Xiner 15:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.TonyTheTiger 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-choster 16:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dylan 17:45, 23 December 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 section.

Category:Buler Rangers F.C. players

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. Timrollpickering 14:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buler Rangers F.C. players to Category:Hong Kong Rangers F.C. players

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. ArtVandelay13 04:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, To fit in with the category header, and the article of the club it relates to. ArtVandelay13 03:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename drop Buler Matthew_hk t c 13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename drop Buler, add HK, per nom. Xiner 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename change 'Buler' to 'Hong Kong' Hikikomori.hk 12:27, 22 December 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 section.

Category:Melbourne newspapers

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. Timrollpickering 14:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melbourne newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Melbourne

Rename, To conform to naming conventions. -- Longhair\^talk 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Strong oppose~~ - why do we have to rename every category to something far longer than the original names? The people who write the naming conventions never seem to think about the implications of this. It's too long to type out. If it must be changed, a redirect from the old page is essential. JROBBO 13:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Categoryredirect}} can be used. Although yes, "Newspapers published in Melbourne" is longer, it's more focused than "Melbourne newspapers"; "Melbourne newspapers" might be those available in Melbourne, those published in Melbourne, those about Melbourne, etc... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 23:59, December 18, 2006 (UTC)
- We don't. The conventions generally represent the most succinct solution that is also grammatical and accurate. Osomec 08:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I'll support a rename so long as there is a redirect. JROBBO 11:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The convention is clearer as to what can be included. In the UK the main newspapers are national, and therefore available in many cities, but it would not be desirable to classify them by those cities. Osomec 08:42, 19 December 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 section.

Spyro character subcategories

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 listify. Lists at Dragons of Spyro the Dragon and Spyro the Dragon villains. Timrollpickering 14:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Spyro the Dragon characters or convert to list articles.

They're small with little potential for growth (fancruft?) and I'm unsure where the characters are from a notability perspective (many are game-specific, and should be covered in the articles for said games).--Stratadrake 02:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to list Xiner 15:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, or listify+delete. No growth potential. >Radiant< 16:30, 21 December 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 section.