[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 24

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< February 23 February 25 >

February 24

edit

Category:West Texas State University alumni

edit
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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:West Texas A&M University alumni, to match West Texas A&M University. -- Prove It (talk) 23:53, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional characters with the power to fly

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This seems to be a very questionable collection of categories, perhaps worthy of deletion as has been suggested. If the categories themselves are likely to be nominated for deletion, I am more likely to close a debate on renaming as "no consensus". It is not worth everyone's effort to clean up categories that may not last long. If these survive a deletion attempt, you can try renaming. -- Samuel Wantman 07:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional characters with the power to fly → Category:Fictional characters with the ability to fly
Category:Anime and manga characters who can fly → Category:Anime and manga characters with the ability to fly
Category:DC Comics characters who can fly → Category:DC Comics characters with the ability to fly
Category:Marvel Comics characters who can fly → Category:Marvel Comics characters with the ability to fly
  • Rename, as I've already explained on Masamage's talk page here and here, some fictional characters have the "power" to fly (e.g., magic usage, inner energy usage, levitational mutant powers, etc.) while others that have wings (e.g., the Gargoyles in the animated series, Angel from X-Men, Tambourine from Dragon Ball, etc.) don't use the "power" to fly because using wings to take flight does not require using "power" or any form of fictional energy usage, as far as I know. Make sense? The only way for the categories to make complete sense, I think, is to have it changed to "with the ability to fly" instead of the former. I hope I explained it well. Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename at least the first one. "Who can fly" is just as good as "With the ability to fly", so whichever one of those happens is fine with me. "With the power to fly" doesn't work, though, because some characters have wings and that isn't really a "power". --Masamage 22:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Masamage's logic makes sense, and I was about to completely agree, but since the other three categories are sub-cats of the first one named, it would be more appropriate to have them all share similar names. Hersfold (talk/work) 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly oppose on the basis that pilots have "the ability to fly" (planes and helicopters and such) and the difference between having the superhuman "power" to fly and the superhuman "ability" to fly strikes me as too trivial to worry about. Is anyone going to look at Archangel or Superman and say to themselves "hmm, now is his flying a power or an ability?" Otto4711 23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - the categories seem to make no distinction between characters who fly under their own power or innate ability and those who fly through artificial means (such as jet packs or powered armor), which leads me to oppose the renames of the last three more strongly and to suggest a rename of the first to Category:Fictional characters who can fly. This removes any question as to whether the characters have the "power" to fly, the "ability" to fly or just "can" fly. Otto4711 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. --Masamage 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per Otto4711. It may come down to the category criteria needing to be tighten up so that there is an explicit difference between personal use equipment (jet packs, flight rings, etc) and vehicles (planes, hovercraft, spaceships, etc). — J Greb 23:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These are some ridiculous categories. They'll have to include almost every fictional bird and pilot. It doesn't say, "ability to fly unaided," does it? Doczilla 10:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I had been pondering voting to delete all before J greb's comments. Categorization by superpower is unwieldly in practice. In many cases (such as this one), a huge debate can develop over the definition of "fly". Similar debates were held when categories for "fictional people who can manipulate energy" and "fictional people who can manipulate radiation" were nominated for deletion. Moreover, the average superhero or anime/manga character either has a wide range of powers or can use their superpowers in multiple creative ways. Hence, someone like Swamp Thing will accumulate multiple categories for all of their superpowers. Rather than trying to deal with both this categorization mess and these strange interpretation debates, it would be better just to delete these categories. Dr. Submillimeter 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please maintain civility at all times and do not make personal attacks at other users. Comment on content, not on the contributors. Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Whether it's "power to fly" or "ability to fly" or "can fly", it is too broad to be useful. Categorization by specific super power has too many problems. Exactly how many power categories would, say, Superman belong to? Too many. Doczilla 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per previous CfDs, and rename with "who can fly" ending.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This would appear to be a natural subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power. However, it doesn't look like that parent category has ever been discussed at cfd, and I'm guessing that if it were nominated as part of a broader umbrella nomination there might be some consensus to delete the whole scheme as having some POV and maintainence problems. Therefore, my recommendation would be to close this particular debate without prejudice one way or another, and instead look at nominating Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power and all its subcategories for review. That way we can take a look at this whole sorting scheme at once. Dugwiki 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be confusion about what the names of the categories should be. Renaming it to "with the ability to fly" can have several meanings, however. A pilot that uses a helicopter or a plane to fly does not necessarily have "the ability/skill/technique to fly". Ergo, the categories are pertaining to fictional characters who fly without the use of any sort of technology, although there may be exceptions (e.g., using a rocket/turbo booster backpack, a magic carpet that is controlled with the mind, etc.,) In this case, having the ability to fly or hover in the air has more to do with a fictional character that utilises some other means of taking flight such as: magic-related usage, levitational techniques, psionic powers, or just having a pair of wings on themselves, regardless. Is this understandable? If anything, there is still a Category:Fictional pilots and Category:Fictional air force personnel which may serve as a category for a fictional character that flies with the use of planes and helicopters and whatnot. Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The categories are useful, but the new names are better. The "pilot" thing isn't a problem - it's the plane's ability to fly, not the pilot's. Cosmetor 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Czech vegetarians

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

The result of the debate was keep Tim! 18:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech vegetarians to Category:Vegetarians
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:Tall Buildings in Glasgow

edit
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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tall Buildings in Glasgow to Category:Skyscrapers in Glasgow
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This category documents a trivial and ambiguous detail about buildings in Glasgow, Scotland. There are only two pages in this category (aside from Glasgow itself, which probably shouldn't be categorized here anyway). This category would better serve the project if it did not contain limiting details such as height, but included all notable buildings in the city. This renaming could also justify shortening the category's description, which is excessively long and may violate WP:CRYSTAL in sections. NOTE: Nomination has been changed as described in discussion below. Hersfold (talk/work) 21:15, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Oklahoma actors

edit
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 per nom. (Unless "Oklahoma" is the name of a prominent settlement somewhere, suggest disambiguation unnecessary.) David Kernow (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oklahoma actors to Category:Actors from Oklahoma
Nominator's Rationale: Rename to avoid the ambiguity that the category might be for actors who appeared in a stage or film version of Oklahoma!, as "Chicago actors" was renamed Category:Actors from Chicago. Otto4711 20:12, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Big Read Books and Category:Big Read Authors

edit
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. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big Read Books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Big Read Authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as trivial, just the result of a poll. There were probably hundreds of polls about the "best" authors and "best" books and we don't have categories for each of them. I don't see why we should have a category for this one, a list is enough. bogdan 19:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The Big Read is not a just a trivial list, it is a cultural thing brought to us by the BBC so it's notable. The point of a category is for further exploration - if somebody comes upon one of these articles, they then see that there are other books that are just as popular. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not just another poll, but an exceptionally prestigious one.--Runcorn 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is categorization by appearance on a published list, a form of overcategorization. Many of these books have already won many other prestigious awards and accolades, and they have appeared at the top of other surveys that may be just as prestigious as the BBC's. Moreover, since the BBC's survey was apparently a survey within the UK, the Big Read represents a UK-centric point-of-view that is not representative of the rest of the world. On this basis, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason, but I think a UK bias would offset Category:Time Magazine 100 best novels which is more US-centric. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 01:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason why that argument does not work (at least with me) is because the other examples often get nominated for deletion as well. I just nominated Category:Time Magazine 100 best novels for deletion. Please find more examples. Dr. Submillimeter 08:49, 25 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Married... with Children cast members

edit
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. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Married... with Children cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete in favor of List of Married... with Children cast members (which will need attention from a subject matter expert) per mass nom of actor by series categories. Otto4711 19:51, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historic Houses in Monmouthshire

edit
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 Tim! 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic Houses in Monmouthshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete,Misspelling alternative now created Uneirlys 18:59, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings and Structures in Monmouthshire

edit
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 Tim! 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and Structures in Monmouthshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Mis spelling in title alternative created Uneirlys 18:53, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Internet pioneers

edit
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. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet pioneers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, What constitutes an "Internet pioneer"? People like Bob Kahn, Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, sure, no question about it. But this category also not-so-pioneering figures like Glenn Davis (web design) (is every web designer a "pioneer"?), Simon Hackett (is everyone who ever started an Internet company a "pioneer"?) and Mark Jacobs (video game designer) (the article only asserts he's a video game developer, and doesn't even mention in what sense he might be an Internet pioneer).

I'd be a lot happier if the category were renamed to something implying that it only includes engineers who were involved in the design of core Internet protocols (and maybe there's a cat like that already, I don't know). I don't know what the new name should be, though, and given the number of questionable people in it already, it would probably be best to start over with a new category.

This category doesn't seem useful, as it invites editors to add everyone who ever had anything to do with the Internet. Why should people waste their time deciding who is and isn't "pioneering"? SparsityProblem 17:38, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Notable Wikipedians

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

The result of the debate was keep. Arguments regarding "encyclopedic" not valid as this is used to categorize the talk pages. No support provided for vanity arguments. Enough supportable reasons to keep offered to balance in favor of keeping over the few remaining reasons to delete. —Doug Bell talk 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This category was created to keep track of Wikipedians who have biograhphical articles written about them; it is completely unreliable and unverifiable, and is therefore useless and should be deleted. It is impossible to know whether a Wikipedian really is a celebrity or not. I'm also nominating Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles as well, for the same reasons above. -- P.B. Pilhet 16:51, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People by university in the United States

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename U.S. categories, don't rename the Canadian ones. --Samuel Wantman
Category:People by university in the United States to Category:People by university or college in the United States
Category:Alumni by university in the United States to Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States
Category:Faculty by university in the United States to Category:Faculty by university or college in the United States
Category:People by university in Canada to Category:People by university or college in Canada
Category:Alumni by university in Canada to Category:Alumni by university or college in Canada
Category:Faculty by university in Canada to Category:Faculty by university or college in Canada

Rename - Articles generally don't distinguish between college and university designations. --Vbd

  • Rename per nom, as the words "college" and "university" are used interchangeably in North America. Walton monarchist89 17:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There may good reason to rename these categories, but college and university are not used interchangably in the U.S. A college as a standalone institution generally is a single school that grants undergraduate ('4-year') BA or BS degrees or a 'community college' granting 2 year AA degrees. A university is a collection of schools, generally including an undergraduate school and one to many graduate schools granting graduate degrees, any of which may be named 'colleges' or 'schools'. Hmains 19:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response per nom. Technically, you are right, Hmains. But in common usage, the terms are used interchangeably, as well as on WP. See, for example, Category:Harvard University alumni (a subcat of one of the nom cats), which makes no distinction between alums from Harvard College, Radcliffe College, or the university as a collection of graduate and undergraduate schools. I must confess that, in putting these cats up for Cfr, I had not given much thought to two-year community colleges, which perhaps should be separated out.--Vbd | (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Star Wars directors

edit
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. the wub "?!" 10:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as inappropriate director by series categorization. Each director's article already notes his direction of the film and undoubtedly each film article links back to the director. Otto4711 16:49, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
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. the wub "?!" 10:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars-related people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - categorizing people based on project is inappropriate and leads to clutter. The participation of these individuals can be noted and interlinked amongst their various articles. Otto4711 16:44, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dallas (TV series) cast members

edit
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. the wub "?!" 10:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dallas (TV series) cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete per previous mass nomination. The main Dallas (TV series) contains a cast listing of some 70 actors whom subject matter experts have determined are the main cast and the important secondary cast. This listing appears to be sufficient to allow for speedy deletion of the category. Otto4711 16:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There needs to be some clarification on the "Listify" tag. Is it meant as "List those 'experts' deem important" or "List all" before deleting that cat? If it's the former, I'd like to see citations as to where the list was drawn from for WP:V and WP:RS reasons. If it's the later, then are we assuming that the 160+ additional actors are one-shot guest stars and/or cameos? If not a full list article needs to be put in place before a "Speedy Delete". — J Greb 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See for example Alias cast CFD where it was determined that the existing lists containing 48 names were sufficient to replace a category with 99 members. I'm willing to accept the work of the people who maintain the Dallas article in creating the cast list. Otto4711 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. Just a concern about the possibility of jumping the gun. Best to have the reasons why put up before a post pops decrying the loss of more than 2/3 of the cast, even if a large chunk of it is cruff. If this is in line with the previous CfD and clean up precedents, then by all means Spedy Delete. — J Greb 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A prominent cast list already exists. Whether this is right or wrong is something for the article maintainers to work with. The fact that an appropriate list exists is prima facie justification of being rid of the category, unless it can be shown that the list is somehow flawed. --Xdamrtalk 17:35, 27 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:MTV Movie Award winners

edit
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. the wub "?!" 10:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MTV Movie Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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 from Adams County, Pennsylvania

edit
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 deleted. the wub "?!" 10:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Veronica Mars fanatic 12:10, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Provincial symbols of Canada

edit
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. the wub "?!" 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Provincial symbols of Canada to Category:Provincial and territorial symbols of Canada
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I created this a few minutes ago to hold the six categories for individual provinces which have been created so far, but when I found the related list it reminded me that some of Canada's first tier administrative divisions are territories. Haddiscoe 11:30, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Polish Academy Award winners

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish Academy Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:Oklahoma Wine

edit
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. the wub "?!" 10:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oklahoma Wine to Category:Oklahoma wineries
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. To match form of other siblings. Also the capitalization needs to be fixed on the second word. Vegaswikian 06:32, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Naive art

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naive art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy. There's nothing in the category. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 06:11, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States wine

edit
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 both. the wub "?!" 10:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States wine to Category:American wine
Propose renaming Category:United States wines to Category:American wines
Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Apparently an editor decided to move the entries from Category:American wine to Category:United States wine without a discussion here. The parent category Category:Wine by country had all children listed as Category:Fooian wine so this last rename is clearly out of place. Found this when the old, and likely correctly named cat, was listed for speedy deletion. Vegaswikian 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between the wine and wines categories is clear. The latter is for beverages and the former for terms particular to wine making/culture etc. Gotox 11:03, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Yale College alumni

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yale College alumni to Category:Yale University alumni
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:Critics of Islam

edit
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. the wub "?!" 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Critics of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), for your consideration. This seems to me almost hopelessly vague, at least as it now is used. A bunch of the folks in there are American columnists or politicians. They, for the most part, criticize Islamic radicalism with some potshots taken at the whole religion. While I could see a use for a 'critics of Islam' category where the word was used in the same spirit as 'literary criticism', I would actually name that category something else to prevent it from becoming a catch-all for jingoists, journalists, and bigots. I think the sub-cats are probably fine, because they are reasonably narrowly defined. Does the Pope belong here, for example? See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion about a question or issue. Derex 01:00, 24 February 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_24&oldid=1138387991"