Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 19

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< April 18 April 20 >

April 19 edit

Category:U.S. Whig Party presidential nominees to Category:Whig Party (United States) presidential nominees edit

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category was put up for speedy rename (expand U.S. to United States). Choster observed that the corresponding categories for other United States political parties were of the form [[Category:X Party (United States) presidential nominee]], so the target name has been changed. DLJessup (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wards of Kawasaki edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closing admin - Going to delete this one in light of (1) Nihonjoe's assertion that there is Japan-related community support for this, (2) there are only two articles in it so its easily reversed if strong opposition arises and (3) my first blush impression of the category thought it had to do with the manufacturing company Kawasaki...which the Kanagawa in the new category name would remove (at least for me). --Syrthiss 14:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been replaced by Category:Wards of Kawasaki, Kanagawa, and has nothing linking to it. Therefore, it is redundant and not needed anymore. 日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. David Kernow 14:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. The additional disambiguation provided by including the prefecture name does not appear to be necessary, and is not used in any of the other subcategories of Category:Wards of cities in Japan. - EurekaLott 03:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, unless and until this is part of a wholesale recategorization in progress. --William Allen Simpson 01:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The decisiion was made within the Japan-related article editing community on Wikipedia to use the "city, prefecture" format when refering to cities in order to avoid any possible confusion with another city/town/village with the same name. This category hasn't been used for a while, and was a sub category of Category:Wards of Kawasaki, Kanagawa (which caused a lot of confusion). There was only one (maybe two) articles in the category, so they were moved to Category:Wards of Kawasaki, Kanagawa since that's where all of the other articles were and it was more precise of a category name. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 18:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:WikiProject Schools edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self reference that is used in article space. {{WPSchool}} uses Category:WikiProject Schools Articles, and that is placed on talks. Only {{cleanup-school}} uses this. Rory096(block) 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

subcategories of Category:Wikipedian user categories edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the subcategories are unclear as to whether they categorize encyclopedic content or not. As some user names are very similar to things that might actually get categories, this can get very messy. I propose that all User categories be renamed to Category:Wikipedian:xxx or Category:User:xxx and subcategories of the user would also have Category:Wikipedian:xxx yyy or Category:User:xxx yyy. (NOTE: I have not tagged any of the user categories, as there are many of them, I just tagged the top cat). 132.205.45.148 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the category: "This category is to hold the top-level category in a user's personal category tree, should they have one". I'm sorry. Category space is not for personal user use like this. Delete all "personal category tree"s. - TexasAndroid 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per TexasAndroid Carina22 20:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and strong delete all children USers do not need personal categories. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category and all personal category trees per TexasAndroid. --JeffW 21:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Hurricane Devon: a rational tool to keep track of his own user subpages without watching them. Septentrionalis 02:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what you mean by "track" and "watch". What's wrong with creating regular links to a user's subpages? --JeffW 03:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, is there a way to see all subpages existing in your userspace in case there a some you created but then forgot to link?  Apologies in advance if I'm missing the obvious. Thanks, David Kernow 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are viewing your userpage, click the What links here link in the left panel. Her Pegship 22:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can also click on the "Special Pages" link in the toolbox to the left, then on "Prefix index", then type your username in the "Display pages with prefix" box and set the drop-down list to "User". That will take you to this page. --00:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
A simpler method is Special:Allpages/User:Username. I have this as a link on my userpage. Thryduulf 00:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to all for the above gems. Have let my forehead drop onto the desk here for not thinking of one of them. Best wishes, David Kernow 13:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Underground economy edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything here can fit into some other category; the term "underground economy" is vague and the articles therein have little commonality Paul 18:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Crime books to Category:True crime books edit

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

The result of the debate was delete after multiple merges. Syrthiss 14:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both these categories exist and contain non-fiction books about crime; merging the contents under True crime books will be more accurate. Her Pegship 17:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Category:Non-fiction crime books, and placed it and Category:Crime novels both under Category:Crime books; I'm moving articles now. Hope that helps. Her Pegship 23:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Roman Catholic secondary education to Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools edit

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to rationalize the many Catholic education categories. This one contains schools exclusively, and since no articles pertaining to Catholic secondary education in general seem likely, the new name will be more accurate and slot better into the emerging Category:Roman Catholic schools. choster 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I am currently working on the huge project of Holy Cross secondary schools and have until now avoided this category because it sounded too much like an article rather than a listing. Thanks. Vaquero100 19:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Holy Cross Colleges and Universities to Category:Holy Cross universities and colleges edit

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This standardizes capitalization and transposes the ambiguous "colleges" after universities, as appropriate for an international order. choster 16:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I am the creator of this category and still a new editor at Wikipedia. I regret that I was not more careful in creating this title--but, I'm learning fast! Vaquero100 19:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom --larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Green Party of British Columbia to Category:Provincial political parties in British Columbia edit

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

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 14:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is redundant and everything in this category belongs in the category above. The category itself only has a subcategory and one article. Nothing else appears to have been added since its creation. Fluit 06:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. —GrantNeufeld 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is useful to identify the parties with many related biographical articles. Bhoeble 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. as per User:Bhoeble. finite but certainly not "redundant" Mayumashu 04:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I checked other provinces. Merging will bring this into the same order. Recategorizing (not deleting) the subcategory will keep the related biographical articles together, just like Ontario. --William Allen Simpson 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category: British Columbia Conservative Party to Category:Provincial political parties in British Columbia edit

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

The result of the debate was merge as above. Syrthiss 14:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is redundant. Furthermore, this party has been a minor force in British Columbia for thirty years, and it is unlikely that there is much need for this category. The category itself only has a subcategory and one article. Fluit 06:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. —GrantNeufeld 06:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is useful to identify the parties with many related biographical articles. Bhoeble 17:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, keep subcategory --larsinio (poke)(prod) 21:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:Bhoeble Mayumashu 04:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I checked other provinces. Merging will bring this into the same order. Recategorizing (not deleting) the subcategory will keep the related biographical articles together, just like Ontario. --William Allen Simpson 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Songs with memorable riffs edit

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

The result of the debate was delete with memorable riffs. Syrthiss 14:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category has 2 entries. Completely POV based with no source links for citation or validation. Anger22 03:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Hamilton Steelhawks players to Category:Hamilton Steelhawks alumni edit

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

The result of the debate was rename, weirdly. Syrthiss 14:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category previously existed and was deleted prior to debate here. Nomination to rename all CHL alumni categories failed due to lack of consensus. Above category should be re-renamed back to "alumni" for consistency and moved back into subcategory Category:OHL alumni, especially as the Hamilton Steelhawks are a defunct team. As it stands now category is an orphan at odds with rest of CHL categories and naming conventions. BoojiBoy 03:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was debated at the link provided above and no conclusion was reached. This nom is simply to get all the identical categories under one roof. They can all be nominated for move again at some point but in the meantime there should not be one convention for all current and former CHL teams and a different one for one former team. BoojiBoy 22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting nomination, since it uses a failed nomination as a reason to attempt to overturn a successful one. I think I regrettably support this nomination for consistency's sake, but I expect that at some point, the group category will come up for renaming as "players" and I will support that too.--Mike Selinker 00:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they're no longer playing for the team, they're alumni, just as former college players are. Ergo, support. Doogie2K (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You can't consider old-timers 'players'. They are only considered players when they are with their current team. Alumni is defined as anyone who is a 'former' member. Since this team is defunct team, each 'former' member falls into the alumni category rather than players. Thricecube 06:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Queens, NYC edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty duplicate of Category:Queens, New York City. Scranchuse 02:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:WAGGGS member organization to Category:World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts member organizations and Category:WOSM member organization to Category:World Organization of the Scout Movement member organizations edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to rename - SEE ADMIN NOTE BEFORE CLAIMING THIS SETS PRECEDENT IN FUTURE DEBATES. Syrthiss 15:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closing admin - Per naming convention policy, these should be expanded. Per the results of this discussion, I count 18 Support to 12 (11 really, someone didn't sign). That puts it into areas of closing admin discretion so I am closing this as no consensus pending some insightful outcome at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Spelling Out Acronyms. I personally agree that while insiders to the community know WOSM and WAGGGS, anyone from outside the community shouldn't (and likely wouldn't) open the category just to try and figure out what the acronym meant. In those latter cases, the categorization scheme on Wikipedia has failed. In the case of NASCAR, the popularity of the branding makes the acronym itself a proper name. I reserve the ability to reopen this debate with all votes in place if the above discussion doesn't break new ground. I await howls of Rouge Admin at my talk page. ;) --Syrthiss 15:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A standard deabbreviation, also correction to the plural. Rename both. CalJW 01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes there is. Bhoeble 17:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you just put it there. Rlevse 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG OPPOSE. We've been through this debate before and the result was to leave the cat as is named now, largely due to the long cat name. This is part of the Scouting project and should be left as is. WOSM and WAGGGS are standard abbreviations. Rlevse 01:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The are just like any other abbreviations, which are familiar to specialists, but Wikipedia is a general reference encyclopedia, not a manual for scouting enthusiasts. There is a strong consensus against abbreviations among users involved in categorisation and no reason for scouting to be treated differently from the dozens of areas in which people with special interests have accepted that removing abbreviations is a good idea. The change would only improve the chances of new people visiting the scouting articles. Bhoeble 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Scranchuse 01:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rlevse. Abbreviations are well known. Proposed name is far too long. --Bduke 02:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG OPPOSE. Think of how many digital trees will have to be cut in order to get all those extra bytes required to write these terribly long suggested category names! --Lou Crazy 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rlevse. --Naha|(talk) 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. There's no good reason to retain such cryptic names. - EurekaLott 03:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; isn't expanding abbreviations a speedy renaming criterion? Kirill Lokshin 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename standard standard abbreviations expansion in category page naming. and i want to see changed Category:British MPs despite British users objections. the way to do it is to break up the members according to which kind of parliament they belonged to, which period of British history, one for Great Britain, Great Britain and Ireland, or Great Britain and Northern Ireland. but to overcome the wish of many British users here i need the support of all the "abbreviation expanders" Mayumashu 04:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Any arguments on this case? I can only see that you want to fragmentize all possible categories, don't you? --jergen 08:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree with Jergen. Also, fragmenting this cat isn't feasabile and a separate issue. Rlevse 09:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Agreed --Naha|(talk) 15:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: We went through this discussion some weeks ago (see 2006 February 6) and there are no new arguments for renaming the categories. As before I have the strong feeling, that categories with names of this length become unusable for both contributors and readers. There are actually 32 entries that are in both of these categories - in some cases the new categorization will be longer than the main text. --jergen 08:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think that anyone but an insider would be familiar with the "cryptic" abbreviations, but I've also noticed over time that Wikipedia "categories," "projects," and all the other interlaced classification hierarchies, are opaque and irrelevant to the common user anyway.  As long as people can type their choice of abbr. or full name in the Search box and get to the information, I think abbreviated cat. names are better for all the "bookkeeping" reasons given above. - Kkken 08:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Excellent point, Ken. Rlevse 09:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, very good point. --Naha|(talk) 15:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a good point. The search box is for people who have chosen to use the search box and the category system is for people who have chosen to use the category system. This is a category. Bhoeble 17:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Rlevse and Jergen NThurston 15:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename It doesn't matter whether these terms are familiar to people involved in scouting or not and the issue should not be decided by them. Bhoeble 17:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Wikipedia is a single encyclopedia rather than a library of specialist books. The people who write articles for Britannica don't choose their own formats for each different subject area, but follow Britannica's presentational conventions. Bhoeble 14:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentWhy not? What work have you done on improving the Scouting articles and project? Rlevse 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What work have you done improving Wikipedia's categorisation system? What makes you think that demeaning other contributors is a healthy contribution to a discussion? Wikipedia needs people willing to do many different types of task and your attitude to people outside your own field is not conducive to a healthy Wikipedia. Bhoeble 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done a lot on cats actually. You should have seen the Scouting cat before the project was formed. For the rest of your comment, ditto. Rlevse 19:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Should really be a speedy. That creates problems with categories containing "U.S." but they can be excluded as they are already from the country name expansion rule. Sumahoy 18:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: US is no country name; if you want everything deabbreviated, this should be expanded to United States of America's ... --jergen 20:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I agree. If there is such a great consensus on this rename, I'll move to rename US scientist stubs to United States of America scientist biographical stubs and US writer stubs to United States of America writer biographical stubs (I would add biographical for consistency with United States military biographical stubs, for example). And it would only be the start... why Miss USA winners instead of Miss United States of America pageant winners ? Why Members and associates of the US National Academy of Sciences when we can have the much more easily readable Members and associates of the United States of America National Academy of Sciences ? --Lou Crazy 02:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent point, why aren't all abbreviated cat names being proposed for renaming? These proposed names take up most of a useable screen line. Rlevse 19:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The abbreviations mean nothing to me. Chicheley 20:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carina22 20:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Abbreviations are offputting. ReeseM 22:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Rlevse and Jergen Chris 23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per previous oppose comments. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 00:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. Nathcer 13:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. Compare this vote with the one below, which has not been overrun by a special interest group. Wikipedia needs presentational consistency. Choalbaton 14:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment Not a valid comparison, the one below is only HALF as long. Maybe we should have "categories with inanely long names". Rlevse 19:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's garbage, it is actually longer by number of words. Bhoeble 16:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both No brainer. Osomec 16:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Too long. Griz 17:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. Calsicol 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. BoojiBoy 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why must this abbreviation be spelled out but few people are arguing for spelling out ARCA in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 17#Category:ARCA racers to Category:ARCA drivers?
  • Comment Excellent point...why are the people arguing for these to be spelled out not arguing for NASCAR and ARCA to be spelled out? Rlevse 18:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This debate is about the nominated categories, not those two categories. It is part of an onging process which has majority backing outside of the scouting clique. For example all the NBA categories were spelled out a while back. Bhoeble 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not very civil, and I'm not part of any "scouting clique". The argument for no abbreviations make sense but it has to be balanced against the problem of creating monstrously long category names. --JeffW 18:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you have to resort to calling people disagreeing with you a "clique", then I think this discussion has gone too far. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. What about stopping the vote to make everyone cool off, and restart it in a couple of weeks? --Lou Crazy 19:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No point 007bond 02:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 1) Whether the abbreviation is familiar to non-interested parties is no more relevant than whether the full name is familiar to non-interested parties. I doubt that many people unfamiliar with WOSM would be familiar with World Organization of the Scouting Movement. Familiarity is not an argument to be considered, mostly because it leads nowhere in making things useful. 2) There is obviously no consensus, nor is there likely to be. Someone should cut off discussion.NThurston 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. I speak and read English, so World Organization of the Scouting Movement makes perfect sense to me, but the abbreviation might as well be in Arabic. Scranchuse 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the longer name is no clearer to "outsiders" (or "insiders" for that matter) than the the shorter one... perhaps we are seeing a limitation of the category system? Horus Kol 11:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. New names aren't that long. It's small price to pay to avoid WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. Lou Crazy is right: everyone needs to calm down. No need to stop the vote though, just to disengage the ego from it. This is not a referendum on the Scouting project vs. people who categorize. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per policy -- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) Avoid abbreviations. All the opposes are invalid, policy is not negotiable. --William Allen Simpson 01:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThen why aren't you voting on the other cats that have abbreviations? Rlevse 01:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Read it again. "Avoid abbreviations." Avoid is not absolute and apparently there are other exceptions. This topic needs to be revisited on the policy page. --JeffW 04:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Touche, JeffW. This policy is inconsistently enforced and that simply is not right. Rlevse 09:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've started a discussion about changing the conventions for category names to allow for not spelling out acronyms in all cases at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Spelling Out Acronyms. Perhaps action on this proposal could be held off until that discussion plays out? --JeffW 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good point. I second it. --Lou Crazy 00:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:GCC States to Category:Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf member states edit

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

The result of the debate was renamte to the members etc etc one. Syrthiss 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be deabbreviated and have the capitalisation corrected. It is also out of date, and unfortunately the organisation has changed its name from Gulf Cooperation Council to something much longer. Rename CalJW 00:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_19&oldid=1108382505"