Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 1

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. —akghetto ^talk 06:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be fundamentally duplicative of WP:WSS/ST and of the Category:Stub categories hierarchy; to be explicitly outwith the scope and purpose of Category:Wikipedia templates, in which it's itself categorised ("Please do not add specific templates themselves to this category"); and to have sprung up from nowhere without discussion, and thereafter acquired a whole sub-hierarchy. Delete 'em all. Alai 23:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just adds confusion. A waste of fine pixels. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 2 March 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. —akghetto ^talk 06:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no list to work off of, and no individual persons are named in sexual slavery; it's not clear to me contents can be defined usefully and uncontentiously. choster 23:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hard to see this one filling up any time soon! --kingboyk 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CalJW 06:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although there are doubtlessly many sex slaves, there are few to none who are individually notable to the point that they should have their own article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. And even the ones who are notable can simply be mentioned in the sex slave article; no need to go to the trouble of a category. -Silence 08:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. Alan Liefting 23:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, both inappropriate and highly unlikely to ever be populated. Bearcat 09:56, 6 March 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:Year of birth unknown. —akghetto ^talk 06:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category.Ziggurat 23:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I wonder about purpose of such category. The birth-year category at least contains weakly related names but this one is just massive indiscriminate collection of people over several millenia. Pavel Vozenilek 01:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an admin category, I guess, part of the series that includes the birth-year categories, death-year categories, Category:Year of death missing, and the controversial Category:Living people. There was a discussion about deleting the people-by-year categories (Wikipedia talk:People by year/Delete) and several good points were made regarding their purpose and inclusion. That said, they should have consistent naming, which is why the duplicate above should be merged. Ziggurat 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Two different things. Some dates of birth are unknown, others simply haven't been added to Wikipedia yet. CalJW 06:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the categories are used currently (almost all the unknown births are included in Category:Year of birth missing), but if a distinction is necessary the appropriate cat. name would be Category:Year of birth unknown, as the existing one is ambiguous (what is unknown about the birth?) Ziggurat 08:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Rename to Category:Year of birth unknown for precisely this reason. A birth year might be known but missing from a Wikipedia article; if and when it were added, the category would (should!) also be removed from the article. Regards, David Kernow 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've been using them as two different things. But I agree the name of Unknown births could be improved. --JeffW 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - however "unknown births" sounds like the actual births are a mystery, not the date. How about "Date of birth unknown" or similar? --kingboyk 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as suggested by Ziggurat Carlossuarez46 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per Zig.--cjllw | TALK 04:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Ziggurat Mayumashu 15:05, 7 March 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 no consensusdelete. —akghetto ^talk 06:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category had only one entry, Zivania, and seemed unlikely to gain many more. All other Category:Distilled beverages articles organized by type first, then origin. -choster 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, or at least Rename to Category:Cypriot distillates. David Kernow 15:20, 9 March 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 oppose rename. —akghetto ^talk 06:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I advocate renaming to Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians because it's more concise and, in my opinion, just better. Bmearns 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support (no vote, nom has been withdrawn) for conciseness. The two terms are roughly synonymous, but one's shorter. However, my Support is weak because renaming the category to that may offend some Rastafarians, as it's an explicit dig at their name, even if a harmless one. If there are any strong objections on that ground, it may be best to just leave it where it is. -Silence 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I think that's a vary valid point in regards to offending Rastafarians. Furthermore, I realized that at a glance (e.g., on a user's page or under the parent category's listing of sub cats) it may actually appear as "Rastafarian Wikipedians"--particularly those unfamiliar with the FSM--and who knows what sort of mild confusion could arise from that. So unless someone offers a good reason to change it, I withdraw my suggestion to rename. bmearns.....(talk) 15:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How does having this category under any name help the encyclopedia? It's a spoof religion, right?! --kingboyk 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Its presumed purpose is to serve as a loose, casual, small-scale WikiProject for the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism article and other articles FSMists are likely to be interested in, like other religious satire or creationism-related articles. In addition to fostering acceptance and diversity of opinion in Wikipedia by, in conjunction with other religion-related usercategories, demonstrating how many different beliefs numerous Wikipedians hold (and FSM, even if it's a satirical religion, still implies certain beliefs, interests or priorities based on its context), it also helps make explicit what issues are important to users and what backgrounds they come from, helping to avoid misunderstandings (the most common cause of disputes on Wikipedia) that would result from being completely unfamiliar with a user's belief system. It also provides users with options: not everyone likes using usercategories, but not everyone likes writing out a detailed, in-depth bio about themselves and would rather just use a quick tag to label some aspect of themselves; and then there are people who prefer doing both, using a tag and writing out a bio. It doesn't do Wikipedia any harm to allow users the freedom to choose any of those three options for self-description, and it does do some good for the encyclopedia, if on a minute, day-by-day scale rather than in dramatic leaps and jumps. It and the other subcategories under Category:Wikipedians by religion may eventually be renamed (formula: "Christian Wikipedians" to "Wikipedians interested in Christianity", etc.) if consensus develops that POV- and belief-expressing userboxes and categories are a bad idea, but interest- and expertise-expressing userboxes and categories are acceptable, which doesn't seem unlikely. If it does get deleted, it'll be in a mass-deletion along with all other religious, political, etc. usercategories, so this isn't the proper place to discuss that; it's to discuss a potential page move. -Silence 01:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Unnecessary to do anything at this point. Metamagician3000 14:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not everyone who believes in His Noodly Appendage identifies themself as a Pastafarian. I myself do not. Janizary 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Janizary. -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 21:24, 5 March 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. —akghetto ^talk 06:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The seemingly accepted method for categorization of occupations by religion is to have a subcategory "XXXX by religion" in the Category XXXX page, and from their to select the religion, cf. Category:Jewish scientists as a sunset of Category:Scientists by religion. Further, there is only one sub-sub category, Category:Yiddish singers which itself has only two articles. Category:Yiddish singers itself is properly categorized without this, and further, it is not necessarily true that every Yiddish singer needs to be Jewish. I propose that this category be deleted and that the two Yiddish singers be placed in a new category "Jewish vocalists" under "Vocalists by religion" under Category:Vocalists. -- Avi 20:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as per Avi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shuki (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment: Are there categories for Category:Jewish doctors, Category:Jewish scientists, Category:Jewish politicians, etc.? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there are Category:Jewish scientists, and I created Category:Jewish mathematicians. There is a need for others, but I feel that they should be under the parent occupation, as is nationality, with a cross-category to Category:Jews, not under a unique category with no equivalent in Wikipedia (and which only has one mis-categorized entry to boot). -- Avi 15:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Avi. Carlossuarez46 02:26, 3 March 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. —akghetto ^talk 06:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons this category will never grow; it contains 4 subcats and 2 articles. I was extremely surprised to not find the subcategories for the 4 key members of the Beatles in Category:The Beatles, and that's because they were hidden away in Category:Members of The Beatles. I propose deleting this category and having the 4 subcats and 2 articles appear in Category:The Beatles. kingboyk 18:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RenameDelete: I can see creating subcategories to group together some of the less important items and get them out of the main category, but in this case they're the most important items in the category and they're still listed in the main category. --JeffW 19:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should 'fess up and say that they're only additionally listed in the main category as of me and as of today. I haven't depopulated the category I have proposed for deletion yet as I thought that would be just plain cheeky :-) --kingboyk 19:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and move the articles into the main cat. CG 19:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, move per CG. Pavel Vozenilek 22:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify as part of the main Beatles article. As to "Can never grow", though, what about Andy White? Or - extending to the same band with earlier names - Pete Shotton, Colin Hanton, Ivan Vaughn, Tommy Moore... Grutness...wha? 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify?! These articles belong in a category, as do all articles. I'm simply proposing a move. The category can't grow because the band split up 36 years ago and 2 of them are dead! (May they rest in peace). I don't think it likely we'll be getting a new Beatles lineup, do you? :) --kingboyk 00:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you actually read what I wrote? If listified it could include details of all the people who were at some time in the band which for the most famous part of its career was called The Beatles. It could add a note to each name saying what years and band name they were part of and what instruments they played. That can't be done with a category. Listification would allow all the names I mentioned above, plus a dozen or so others ((Chas Newby, Norman Chapman, Ken Brown, John Lowe, Eric Griffiths, Len Garry, Rod Davis, Bill Smith and Nigel Whalley, IIRC). This could either be included in the main article on The Beatles or as a perfectly acceptable list article in its own right. The subcategories for each of the Fab Four could and should then go straight into the main Category:The Beatles. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CIVIL please. If you wish to create such a list be bold and go ahead (but note the existence of The_Beatles#Early_members, History_of_The_Beatles#Personnel, Fifth Beatle). I simply came here to get permission to have the contents of Category:Members of The Beatles moved into Category:The Beatles and have the former deleted! How that connects to the creation of a list I don't know. --kingboyk 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry if you regarded my comment as uncivil - it was not intended to be. IOt just seemed that you hadn't read all of what I initially wrote. Listify is one of the perfectly acceptable options when something is brought up for deleytion on this page - it's frequently the case that something represented as a category is better kept as a list. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Water under the bridge. We have a dialogue going at User_talk:Kingboyk#The_Beatles if other Beatle-interested editors wish to join. Will move to a suitable forum asap! --kingboyk 23:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This and other discussions lead to the formation of WP:Beatles. --kingboyk 04:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant and not helpful, if anything it makes the category confused. -- Samuel Wantman 00:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the nom per the nom. (Delete + ...) Carlossuarez46 02:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Concensus seems to be fairly clear. Would anyone mind if I depopulate and orphan the category now? The pages and subcats have already been categorised into the main category. It's an easy revert if for some reason the category ends up being kept. --kingboyk 18:56, 3 March 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. - EurekaLott 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently supplanted by Category:Companies based in Fargo-Moorhead and should therefore be deleted.- choster 17:56, 1 March 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 --Latinus 21:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is based on a CNN/Money list and to whatever extent it may be encyclopedic, ought to remain a list. We shouldn't categorize based on proprietary, changing, and subjective designations. - choster 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --kingboyk 22:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom CalJW 06:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NB: the list itself probably cannot be posted because of copyright. That said, this category is not useful. Carlossuarez46 02:29, 3 March 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. —akghetto ^talk 07:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very non-neutral name, which makes the cat itself POV. Either delete or rename to a general Hammer actors cat if there isn't one and there is consensus that there should be. —Whouk (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: is this really a defining category for the persons listed here? Pavel Vozenilek 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've converted the {{cfd}} into the above {{cfr}} as a rename suggestion. Hope that's okay. If so:

Rename, as {{cfr}} proposer.

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. —akghetto ^talk 08:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I had the Alien cat renamed Extraterrestrials a few months ago and believe we should use consistent naming for these. "Alien" is more widely-used popularly, but Extraterrestrial is more encylcopedic and is totally unambiguous Marskell 09:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 01:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename agree with above. --BerserkerBen 23:24, 9 March 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. —akghetto ^talk 08:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this also, per above nom. I don't know if both of these need to exist and there is overlap between them. I suppose this one could be justified for individual ETs and the above for species... Marskell 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As opposed to all those verifiably documented real extraterrestrials, I suppose...but move as proposed. Bearcat 10:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 01:23, 8 March 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. —akghetto ^talk 06:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This category is virtually unused, populated only by a handful of CVU pages, a user page, and a user sandbox. I've been working with members of the Counter Vandalism Unit for a while now, and as far as I can tell most watch all articles using various RC feed tools. I imagine most CVU members don't have Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit/Archive 4 on their watchlist, so these pages aren't watched any more closely than any other. The category implies a powerful organisation hunkered down over the pages and discourages edits to them, bad or not. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. By definition, the CVU watches all pages, and marking particular edits in the main namespace was eventually discouraged by other members of Wikipedia. The category does not have any particular use, so delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Tito. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Furthermore, why announce to vandals where their actions are most likely to be spotted?! --kingboyk 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others above. --日本穣 23:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above, note cat is currently orphaned as well. -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:37, 7 March 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 reverse merge. - EurekaLott 18:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in accordance with the standard for all other UK regional football team categories eg: Category:English football clubs. --Mal 13:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 06:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We frequently have complaints here about the non-standard adjectival form "Northern Irish", which IIRC is not overly liked in Northern Ireland. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who decided that "Northern Irish" was "non-standard" please?
• Oppose. Reverse merge 'Northern Ireland' is the less controversial adjective Mayumashu 03:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's contraversial about it? I live in Northern Ireland, and I'm fine with it, and everyone I've ever known here seems to be fine with it too! --Mal 14:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nomination. Stu 11:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there something about the football (like US vs. Canadian vs. Australian) that makes it Northern Irish, or if Northern Ireland is merely the location of the clubs then shouldn't we rename to Category:Football clubs in Northern Ireland?? forgot my tildes Carlossuarez46 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you're asking. Being intrinsic to Northern Ireland, they are Northern Irish. The clubs form the Irish Football League. Northern Irish is the proper nomenclature, given that all the other UK football league teams are named similarly (ie "English"; "Scottish"; "Welsh"), I see no reason that the Northern Irish clubs be treated any differently. The request is for standardisation. I propose changing this one to "Northern Irish", OR changing the others to England, Scotland and Wales. So far there has been one person in opposition to the proposal. The reason cited is that "Northern Ireland" is supposed to be "less contraversial" than "Northern Irish". Being from Northern Ireland (and therefore being Northern Irish!), I can tell you that there is no such contraversy. --Mal 11:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't care about controversies over Northern Ireland. The normal naming of organizations that exist in a place is: Category:Organizions in Place, just trying to find out why something is different here. However, "Canadian Football" means something different than football in Canada; I was trying to figure out if there were some reason that Northern Irish football differs in any respect (other than geographically) from English football. Judging by your response I assume it doesn't, so why not Category:Football clubs in Northern Ireland and change the English, Welsh, Scottish, etc. to match?? Carlossuarez46 18:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would be concerned over controversies if any controversy actually existed. However, I agree with you that there needs to be standardisation and, as I suggested above and you have re-iterated, I think either the "in Northern Ireland" part of the name needs to be changed to "Northern Irish" or that the "English", "Scottish" and "Welsh" names be changed to "in England", "in Scotand" and "in Wales". There is absolutely no reason that the Northern Ireland/Northern Irish be any different: it is not standard. --Mal 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and reverse merge, per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_9#Northern_Irish: "The result of the debate was Rename all."--Mais oui! 09:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• reverse merge as per Mais Oui! Grutness...wha? 00:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't the 9th of September. --Mal 02:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • no but things havent changed here so much that presedent set then isnt still used. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't a court of law. Hardly anybody contributed to that debate, and from September 05 to March 06 is a long time in wikiland. Let's focus on what the consensus is now not then. --kingboyk 03:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to state here though kingboyk, that I'm not desparately keen on creating a "rocking the boat" scene here. While I think my proposal merits a good sounding out, and consensus bearing in mind the logic of standardisation, I'd hate to see this degrade into a kind of revert war, whereby people bring up the same issue over and over. --Mal 03:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I appeciate that Mal, and hopefully others do too. Perhaps there needs to be a wider debate, to formulate a general naming standard. As I don't have any particular personal or wiki interest in this matter I'll butt out now unless invited to contribute again. --kingboyk 04:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Things haven't changed"? I don't know what that means tbh. I looked at the 'precedent', and discovered what appears to have been a vote: 2 for the renaming of ALL categories, and 1 against. --Mal 10:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Rename all per Mai Oui; I just couldn't put my finger on the precedent. Good sleuthing. Carlossuarez46 02:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Good sleuthing"? Thanks... I think. Can I ask whether any of you have actually read any of my comments here? A couple of people have made some points about this, and I have refuted them. 1) The use of "Northern Irish" is not controversial. 2) The use of "Northern Irish" is not "non-standard". I state again: there is no reason for the naming format for Northern Irish sports personalities (or any other category for that matter) to be any different from the other constituent countries of the UK. While it might make more sense to rename all the UK clubs to read "Clubs in/from country X", it would probably be easier to simply rename the Northern Irish clubs in order to conform to the current format. Let's have some consistancy. --Mal 10:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks were meant. I just think that "Clubs in/from country X" is the proper consistency which should be matched by Northern Ireland (as well as England, Wales, Scotland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, and any parts I have unintentionally omitted) Carlossuarez46 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say "Northern Ireland" is a noun, not an adjective. If the adjective "Northern Irish" is inappropriate, how about Rename to Category:Football clubs of Northern Ireland? Too cumbersome?  Regards, David Kernow 15:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OK Carlos. I actually agree with your logic. I'm not sure I agree with you regarding "Object/Person in/from country x", as opposed to "national description adjective noun". As a quick test, I decided to type in "Category:French footballers", and lo and behold, it took me straight to an existing category. Why should it be that, when I type in "Cat:Northern Irish..." there are none, or very few? I understand of course that all the categories have been renamed, as Mais Oui is fond of reminding us... but the rationale is in error. I agree with David Kernow's view also. But the fact is that, as far as I've noticed, the vast majority of categories are "French...", "German...", "Italian...", and NOT ".. in France", ".. in Germany", ".. in Italy". Thus, it makes absolutely no sense to have Northern Irish categories as the seemingly only exception to this de facto standard. As a Northern Irish person, when I create articles I use the proper adjective as befitting my (sub-)national description. Considering the vast majority of these categories seem to follow the "French..." example, then surely the easiest solution is to rename all the Northern Irish cats, and not to rename all the other country-specific cats. --Mal 03:24, 10 March 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. —akghetto ^talk 06:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia User catagory getting into article namespace, empty as well, Delete SimonLyall 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's empty and duplicates Category:Methodist Wikipedians. - EurekaLott 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Violation of Jimbo's wishes. OsFan 03:30, 10 March 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 no consensus. EurekaLott 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to propose the merger of Category:People known in connection with religion or philosophy with Category:Religious People. The rename will allow moving categories like cat:Atheists and cat:Panentheists from cat:People known in connection with religion or philosophy to People by religious belief. Then the rest of the categories like cat:Mystics and cat:Heretics can be merged into cat:Religious people. JeffW 03:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added cfm templates to Category:People known in connection with religion or philosophy and Category:Religious people but the links don't point here. Can someone fix it? --JeffW 03:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I don't understand. What's the point and aim of these moves? -Silence 08:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To eliminate duplicate categories. --JeffW 15:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to hopefully end up with better defined more useful categories. --JeffW 17:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have more time for typing. The basic problem is taht Category:People by religion, Category:People known in connection with religion or philosophy (Pkicwrop), and Category:Religious people overlap each other to a great extent. It was confusing when Buddhists were listed in Pkicwrop and Christians were listed in People by religion. I've moved all the plain religion categories to People by religion but the more philisophical categories like Atheists and Panentheists I've left because they aren't religions. Maybe I could stretch the definition a little for religious philosophies and move them anyway, but I thought renaming the category to Category:People by religious belief would be better.

Then that leaves subcategories like Mystics and People who helped Jews during the Holocaust that could just as easily exist in Religious people and we could get rid of Pkicwrop. That would leave two categories, People by religious belief for particular religions and Religious people for anything else religious but can't be classified under a particular religious belief. Does that explain my thinking better? --JeffW 17:33, 2 March 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 no consensus. —akghetto ^talk 08:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is meant for fictional Americans, but the way it's written, it could also mean fictional characters from American television, and not all of them are American. --- Lancini87 02:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Listing television characters by nationality may be overcategorizing things a bit, and I can't find any other examples of it. The current system of categorizing characters by genre seems to be working well. - EurekaLott 05:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. It is not unusual for Americans to need subcatgorisation first, but then Americans could be treating the genre categories as American by default on the popular "everyone and everything is American unless specified otherwise" basis. Piccadilly 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. It is possible for a character to be living in the United States and not be an American citizen. Even though citizenship status can be in doubt, location in which the character lives is not in doubt. Q0 11:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose so we are going to divide up characters from US tv shows into those who are 'from' the US and those who aren't? Why? Are Ricky Ricardo & Latka disposable while the rest of the casts from Lucy & Taxi are kept. What encyclopedic value is that other than singling out (fictional) immigrants? Carlossuarez46 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it IS a category for "fictional Americans" (fictional people/characters originally from the United States). Besides, they don't have to be exclusively or specifically from "American television" (that's the reason why i proposed the category for renaming). They can also be American characters from foreign television. By the way, no one is singling out anyone, there's similar categories (Category:Fictional characters by origin) for characters from different countries. --- Lancini87 19:40, 4 March 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. —akghetto ^talk 06:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused except for self references; no actual images present. Seems to be abandoned. JonHarder 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom --- Lancini87 19:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obsolete category. Green Giant 01:57, 8 March 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.