Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 25

< July 24	July 26 >

July 25

Category:The District

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series article. Otto4711 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Carlos. Johnbod 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorisation, Tewfik^Talk 16:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scott Boras clients

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I personally doubt this category is needed, it just lists all the clients Scott Boras have. See WP:OCAT Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom; this is Ocat in the extreme and a terrible precedent to set: will every bio had "clients" cats for the subject's lawyers, hairdressers, mechanics, doctors, electric utility, etc.? I hope not. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and WP:OC. Otto4711 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. Oliver Han 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above Johnbod 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People appearing in gay pornography

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People appearing in gay pornography to Category:Actors appearing in gay pornography

Nominator's rationale: Rename, a person appearing in a film is usually referred to as an amateur or professional actor. Either rename to "Category:Gay pornography actors". Gilliam 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Then they would have to go as a sub-category of actors, which is probably not the best idea. Johnbod 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. We've already decided against "Gay pornographic actors", etc, as it is confusing as to whether we mean pornographic actors who are gay or those who appear in gay pornography. It would still be a subcat of Category:Male porn stars, which is a subcat of Category:Porn stars, which is a subcat of Category:Actors. Pornographic actors are still considered actors, I believe. — Anemone Projectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change it back to Gay porn stars - renaming it in the first place (after what seemed like a half a dozen CFDs in as many weeks) was asinine. The notion that there's going to be mass confusion over the category with people tearing their hair over whether it means [gay porn] stars or gay [porn stars] was completely manufactured. If the actor appears in gay porn and is also gay then they go in the Gay porn stars category and the appropriate LGBT actors category. Otto4711 20:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename per nom. Do not change back to "Gay porn stars" as the potential for confusion is 100% genuine for those of us who are not familiar with this field of endeavour. Oliver Han 20:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I don't believe this. And if you truly have never heard of gay pornography or don't know what a gay porn star is, there are resources available for figuring it out. By looking at the article Gay pornography for instance. And if you still can't figure it out from that, then a sentence in the category description is all that's needed to clarify. The term "people appearing in gay pornography" is not used outside Wikipedia. "Actors appearing in gay pornography" yields exactly zero Google hits. It does not exist as a term anywhere I can find outside this nomination. Whereas "gay porn star" is widely used within and outside the industry. We should not be creating terms out of whole cloth. We should be using the common and easily understood terminology. Otto4711 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and oppose alternative per Oliver Han. Believe it or not Otto, there are still several billion people in the world who have had no exposure whatsoever to gay porn. It's just a fact that "Gay porn star" is ambiguous, and there is no reason to give a category a name that requires research, when it is possible to give it a clear name. Dominictimms 12:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not only is this not a clear name (it allows for the inclusion of such people as Chi Chi LaRue who is not a porn star but has appeared in gay porn films in non-sexual roles) but it is not a name that exists anywhere but this encyclopedia. We're not supposed to make stuff up here and that's exactly what this name is, made up. And somehow no one seems to have any trouble figuring out that Category:Gay porn directors is for people who direct gay porn. Otto4711 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Gay-porn stars" would solve the ambiguity? Xtifr _tälk 20:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the original and expected Category:Gay porn stars. It seems some people are never happy, see discussions of March 23rd, 25th and December 5th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the original, especially as the parent and sister categories maintain that naming. Hyphenating the lot of them might be a good idea though. Tewfik^Talk 16:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Astrological organizations

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Astrological organizations to Category:Astrological associations

Nominator's rationale: Rename, In accordance with the main article Astrological associations. Samuel Grant 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- The main article starts with this sentence: "There are many astrological organizations in the world." Organizations seems like a more general term, and I think the article should be moved there, rather than moving the category. LeSnail 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article uses "organizations" because it was recently changed to match up with the category. Samuel Grant 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Whatever the outcome, both the article and category should have the same name. If the article content was in fact changed to match the category but not renamed, I'd lean towards supporting this rename as proposed. Then cleaning up the article. Vegaswikian 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Organizations" is a more general term, and is more widely used in category names. There is no apparent reason to prefer "Associations" in this case. Oliver Han 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Oliver Han and to support a consensus. The article should be renamed to match the category name. Vegaswikian 04:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete the entry, which is just a short listing of the categorised groups. Tewfik^Talk 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Psych

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for the television series as per many previous similar cfds and WP:OCAT. All articles in the category are character or episode listings already properly grouped under Category:Television characters by series and Category:Television episodes by series. Can be safely deleted. Dugwiki 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. Johnbod 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorisation, Tewfik^Talk 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2000s fads

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Problem one: a number of the things in this category are still popular. How can things like iPods, Harry Potter and MySpace be described as "fads"? Problem two: of the things that could arguably be called fads, who decides they are fads? This seems entirely POV to me. AlistairMcMillan 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment go up a level to Category:Fads and you get this text: A fad, also known as a craze, refers to a fashion that becomes popular in a culture (or subcultures) relatively quickly, remains popular, often for a rather brief period, then loses popularity dramatically, as it either fades into obscurity, or becomes a regular part of a society's culture. Removing the 2000 cat would/should result in the removal of the Fads category and all it's sub-cats. Lugnuts 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts, but iPods, Harry Potter and MySpace are not fads, so just remove them. However real fads should be allocated to a time period category, and time period categories require subdivision. Dominictimms 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this category needs better inclusion criteria, Tewfik^Talk 16:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Law schools in Iowa

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep, part of an overall scheme. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There are only two law schools in Iowa and only one of them is even in this category right now. We don't need a separate category for such a small class. Velvet elvis81 17:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of wider scheme - Category:Law schools in the United States has subcats for most states (45). Johnbod 17:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of an overall categorization scheme per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod. Nathanian 13:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of wider scheme, Tewfik^Talk 16:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Seasons in American football

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Seasons in American football to Category:Years in American football

Nominator's rationale: Merge, These categories serve the same purpose and can be merged. Tim! 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without prejudice to which name should be chosen, as both forms are in use (although "years..." is more common that "seasons..." Tewfik^Talk 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Juvenile 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Juvenile albums to Category:Juvenile (rapper) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename - as with Category:Juvenile (rapper) songs; to reduce the ambiguity of a name which could refer to albums recorded by or for juveniles. Otto4711 16:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom; would be much too large otherwise :) Johnbod 17:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename dab per nom, Tewfik^Talk 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Darwinian mythology

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inherently anti-evolution POV -- the category name necessarily implies a value judgment that parts of evolution theory are "myths". NawlinWiki 15:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As per nom. As evidenced by the articles that thusfar have been assigned to this category (Darwinism, Natural selection and Transitional fossil), this is an anti-science POV-pushing category with no merit. --Plumbago 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Plumbago, but nom should not have emptied the category in advance of the nomination. Note: the creator's only edits have been to do with this category, in the last hour or so. Johnbod 16:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ornis (t) 17:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tell it to Conservapedia. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Nom, this category was clearly created to fallaciously represent well-established facts (e.g. the existence of transitional fossils[1]) and theoretical constructs (e.g. natural selection[2]) as "myths". This not only violates WP:NPOV, but most likely WP:RS and quite possibly several other policies as well. Hrafn42 17:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment technically it is a myth according to the definition a myth is a traiditional story of a people religions are being classified as myth according to this definition also darwinism not evolution is now considered false because of some false assumptions of Darwin evolution is a more advance version of darwinism i think you misunderstand the definition of myth a myth is a traditional story for example urban myth means a urban traditional story i think you should reconsider what the definition means befire you say this is pov pushing--Java7837 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither natural selection, nor the existence of transitional fossils is a "traditional story", nor is either "of a people [sic] religion". Darwinism, as it is defined in the article (as opposed to the vague Creationist bogeyman) has been modified, updated and extended, but its central hypothesis of Evolution by Natural Selection is still ubiquitously accepted by the scientific community - thus it is not "considered false". Hrafn42 06:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, we don't refer to Newtonian myths, even though many of Newton's physical theories have been superceded by relativity and/or quantum mechanics. Xtifr _tälk 13:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A myth is a traditional story of a people involving a hero, gods or goddesses, or creation. Darwinianism fits that criteria. It is a story this group of creatures moved to this place away from their kin and got isolated away from them thus evolved then later... humans that is a traditional story involving creation--76.216.84.3 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The above comment is actually from Java7837. You should probably read Introduction to evolution, Evidence of common descent, and Scientific method, before commenting again. It helps if you have at least a basic understanding of what you're talking about. ornis (t) 15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except that the Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (i.e. "Darwinism") is neither "traditional", nor a "story" nor is it concerned with "creation", but rather change. In the latter, you are conflating the Theory of Evolution with Abiogenesis, which is part of neither Darwin's original, nor the modern, Theory of Evolution. Hrafn42 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, for creation, I would point to Big Bang, not Abiogenesis. The latter is also about change (in this case, from non-living to living), rather than creation. Xtifr _tälk 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was false simply that it fits the criteria for a myth as does Yakub --Java7837 17:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment myth is a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation
Darwinism concerns a event with a determinable basis of fact --Java7837 17:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Darwinism is not a traditional or legendary story. It's not a story at all. It's a scientific theory, like the Theory (Theories) of Gravity or the Theory of Quantum Chromodynamics. This is obviously a not-so-subtle attempt at POV pushing. Xtifr _tälk 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure and factually wrong POV. Dominictimms 12:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It would be a funny bumper sticker but it's a lousy category. A Musing 18:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV nonsense. --musicpvm 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You claim that Darwinism is not a type of mythology then why is there a Category:Jewish mythology category somehow Judaism which people died for is less true than a theory taken out of context by scientists darwin meant bird a -> bird b etc. never fish->...mammal...->human i doubt Darwin would believe in the theory of evolution it is so radically different i am ok with believing bird a -> bird b but not fish->...mammal...->human that is pure lunacy and yes Darwinism isn't a story but the processes of Darwinism are stories --Java7837 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment on Jewish mythology is a non sequitor - whether "people died for" something is irrelevant in determining whether it is mythological or not. You are incorrect in stating "darwin meant bird a -> bird b etc. never fish->...mammal...->human", in that Darwin supported Common descent: "[P]robably all of the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." Finally, you are incorrect in stating that "the processes of Darwinism are stories" - these processes are in fact the focus of a large volume of very productive scientific research. Hrafn42 06:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider Judaism a type of mythology then i consider Darwinism a form of fiction--Java7837 07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why i made the Darwinism mythology category is because the atheists classified religions as mythologies thus i classified Darwinism as mythology to get back them there is no reason why Judaism or Islam Christianity should be classified as mythologies (because the anti-theists i have met want to get everyone in the world to believe Darwin's teachings honestly you'd think they were missionaries trying to tell about Jesus at least that would be less boring also I met a idiot who doesn't believe in the existence of gravity because the quran never speaks of it when everyone believe in gravity then i am ok with them spreading darwin's news till then they better leave everyone alone) --Java7837 07:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Java7837: I would suggest you read WP:SOAP. Your problem appears to be with 'atheists' applying the dictionary definition of mythology to your own pet beliefs. Attempting to apply the term 'mythology' outside this definition to an area of scientific research where it is patently inapplicable will not aid your cause. Hrafn42 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read WP:SOCK. ornis (t) 13:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NHL-players who have played in Norway

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial intersection. They played in the NHL and they played in Norway, good for them. Recury 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This might be defining for Norweigian players. Johnbod 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial intersection, if kept it should be renamed to reflect the purported inclusion criteria: that the player played in Norway's top division, otherwise anyone who "played" (hockey? hookey?) in Norway who ends up in the NFL belongs. Carlossuarez46 21:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Olympics were in Norway, and had hockey... do all of them also belong? 70.51.8.90 04:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of Slovaks in the NHL is the way to go. Johnbod 21:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial OCAT, though a Norwegian ice hockey league category might be better than the current Category:Ice hockey in Norway. Tewfik^Talk 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Iraqi Army Generals

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated and convention. If there are only army generals, there is no need for Category:Iraqi Army generals AND Category:Iraqi generals. If we find articles for non-army generals, we can break it down further then. --Kbdank71 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Iraqi generals, convention of Category:Generals by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom & convention. Johnbod 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like the sin here is mainly not having an intermediate category for Iraqi generals and various subs (including this one, one for air force, one for republican guard generals), like for American generals. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Iraqi Army generals and make it a subcategory of Category:Iraqi generals. Nathanian 13:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Iraqi Army generals per Nathanian. Dominictimms 12:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Iraqi Army generals per Nathanian. Carlossuarez46 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Camp Lazlo characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC; remnants of over-categorization of subject matter; articles have been merged into a total of about six related pages; subject does not really rate multiple cats Yngvarr 13:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty Since the articles previously in category have been merged into lists, this can be deleted as empty. However, I should point out that if the individual characters ever do have their own articles then this category would be appropriate under the scheme for Category:Television characters by series. So if those articles are recreated, then this category should be too. Dugwiki 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as empty, Tewfik^Talk 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Baltimore, Maryland

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was reverse merge --Kbdank71 15:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:People from Baltimore, or the reverse. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge: I generally believe the category should match the city article in such cases, which is Baltimore, Maryland in this case. Xtifr _tälk 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per precedent and existing hierarchy, Tewfik^Talk 16:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Luxembourgian adjectival clean-up

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename:

Category:Luxembourgish society to Category:Luxembourgian society

Category:Art from Luxembourg to Category:Luxembourgian art

Category:Luxembourg football competitions to Category:Luxembourgian football competitions

Category:Luxembourgish science fiction writers to Category:Luxembourgian science fiction writers

Rationale: Correct the adjectival forms of these categories to 'Luxembourgian', per previous decisions and WikiProject Luxembourg ('Luxembourgish' should be used for the language, hence is actually confusing when it comes to the science fiction writers category). They all meet the speedy criteria (in that it's an error in the use of English), but I thought I'd just make this a precedent. Plus, I wasn't sure if one can speedy a whole group through. Bastin 11:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment These are not speedies as speedy is for non-controversial items, and the correct adjective for Luxembourg is a controversial issue. Postlebury 12:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's uncontroversial in internal Wikipedia terms, since that's the convention upon which we are agreed. This is just as uncontroversial as moving something from 'Category:X in Georgia' to 'Category:X in Georgia (country)'. In the outside world, and amongst newer Wikipedia contributors, there could easily be bar brawls over whether or not Georgia (the country) is significantly more important than the State of Georgia. However, here we are agreed on the solution, even if not everyone agrees the answer. Similarly, so we are on what the solution here is. Bastin 13:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Rename but not as a speedy. Unless there is certainly that it meets one of the 5 criteria, it is not a speedy. There speedy criteria should not be seen as possessing any flexibility or they are open to abuse. Nathanian 13:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; as Nathanian says, it should be done here. Johnbod 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and convention, Tewfik^Talk 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Textile companies of Hong Kong

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Duplication: There is only one entry in this category, and the category Category:Clothing companies of Hong Kong already exists. Ohconfucius 09:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Johnbod 12:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have seen similar CfDs go in the opposite direction because of the "by country" hierarchies. We should establish a clear principle over when this is WP:OCAT, and when this is infrastructure building in the spirit of WP:REDLINK. Tewfik^Talk 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Malaysia Airlines Kargo

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The only article in this category was MASKargo - changed cat to Malaysia Airlines hence unpopulated. Russavia 07:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod 12:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aircraft manufactured by

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, all that was left was a template --Kbdank71 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Aircraft manufactured by to Category:?

Nominator's rationale: Rename? I was going to suggest deletion but maybe there is a rename that makes sense. Vegaswikian 06:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category makes no sense and doesn't appear to be a unifying characteristic of the included subcats. Otto4711 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: from the sub-cat names the probable proper name of this cat should be "International aircraft", but it is unclear what these categories mean by "international", as they include both a trans-Pacific flying boat and a short-range fighter. If this category is deleted, then its sub-categories should probably be deleted too as, apart from its odd name, they make no more sense than it does. Hrafn42 18:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:International aircraft appears to be for aircraft which were developed or manufactured by companies in more than one country. These all appear to be subcats of that parent. Otto4711 20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming this is true (the Martin M-130, part of sub-Category:International aircraft 1930-1939, does not appear to be manufactured in more than one country), then this category should probably ~~merge with Category:International aircraft~~, possibly with a recommendation that "International" be replaced with "Internationally-manufactured" (in both cat & sub-cats) to avoid confusion. Hrafn42 02:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Subcats now in Category:International aircraft, per Rlandmann, so recommendation returns to delete. Hrafn42 03:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge with Category:Aircraft by type that's what these seem to be. Carlossuarez46 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suspect that Category:Aircraft by type is ~~the incorrect~~ an erroneous parent-category for this category. It's correct parent would appear to be Category:Aircraft by country, all but one of whose subcategories are of the form 'Category:Aircraft manufactured by [Country]'. This category is also the parent of Category:International aircraft, with which I had suggested Category:Aircraft manufactured by be merged with, above. Hrafn42 07:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question - even though people associate Boeings with the US, and Airbus with France (or Germany) - aren't most large modern aircraft, like most automobiles, manufactured in multiple countries or is the country of final assembly considered the "country of manufacture"? Carlossuarez46 16:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not a regular aircraft editor (I just stumbled upon this oddity of a category in CfD & got curious), so I can only give you an answer based upon logic. My suspicion is that the country-of-manufacture would be the country of final assembly by its manufacturer, unless it was manufactured by a multinational consortium (all Airbus aircraft appear to be listed as "international", as do French-Italian ATR, and there is a Category:International aircraft manufacturers), or perhaps had significant component manufacture from another country (which may account for some of the aircraft who are categorised as "international" when their manufacturer is not). Incidentally, Category talk:International aircraft has the following comment: "I would prefer to call this category "Multinational aircraft" (with similar changes to all subcategories)..." Hrafn42 17:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Carlos for now, though I've left a message with the Aviation WP. Tewfik^Talk 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subcats do indeed belong under "International aircraft". This appears to be an artifact of the bot-implemented category move from the old "Category:French aircraft" to "Category:Aircraft manufactured by France" that took place around April 2006. Apparently, the person(s) responsible didn't finish the job. I'm moving the child categories. --Rlandmann 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. To finish the job, "Category:International aircraft" should be renamed "Category:Aircraft manufactured by international joint ventures" to make it consistent with the rest of the new naming scheme. Note, however, that no child categories were renamed in 2006, so they shouldn't be in this case either. --Rlandmann 22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Commercial aviation

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category started to have place for Commercial aviation. Have placed that article in the right cat, and other articles in their correct categories too. Russavia 05:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation as part of a reorganisation, as this would not be a bad way to organise the sector, imho. Really categories should not be emptied before a nomination, see the main Cfd page. Johnbod 12:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete surprising that this isn't populated, but I guess the term of art is civil aviation? Carlossuarez46 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Tewfik^Talk 17:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.