Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 13

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< July 12 July 14 >

July 13

edit

Category:Polish resistance to Category:Polish resistance during World War II

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the very same reason Polish resistance is a disambig.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom while all the other similar categories (in Category:World War II resistance movements) don't have this addition, there's no ambiguity about which resistance they refer to. Ziggurat 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually wondering if it might be a good idea to rename all of them, for specificity. In my opinion, we should be able to tell just from a category's name what sorts of articles will be in it, and Category:French Resistance (etc) doesn't accomplish that until I see the parent category. (Note also that there's a speedy or two for capitalization, in there, regardless.) Regards, Luna Santin 05:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Cloachland 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 17:42, 15 July 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:Bronxites to Category:People from the Bronx

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 Renaming in progress, please have patience --William Allen Simpson 04:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating discussion since CFD was never finished. Also doing it since I agree with the nom, though I think it should be "People from the Bronx, New York". --Dismas|(talk) 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom (and don't disambiguate when there is nothing to disambiguate from). Chicheley 21:33, 13 July 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:Andrew Jackson

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 keep, category no longer underpopulated. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This eponymous category only has one article in it after half a year. Not needed. Help control the overpopulation of eponymous categories! --Samuel Wantman 20:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. By all means, the content there should be mentioned in the articles (it is), but if that's the only article, there's not much point in a cat. Luna Santin 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Keep. Choster wins. Luna Santin 05:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. One of the most notable 19th century U.S. Presidents. Cloachland 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jackson is definitely a notable U.S. President, but there's no reason to keep the category around if there's only one thing to put in it. If more articles show up later, the category can be re-created easily enough. --Elonka 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why wait? I've populated it now.-choster 21:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep For all the reasons stated above. Now 27 articles. Thanks Hmains 02:09, 14 July 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.

Fictional characters by hair color

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. - EurekaLott 03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Category:Fictional characters by hair color[reply]

Category:Fictional brunettes
Category:Fictional blondes
Category:Fictional redheads

A set of categories that appear to be recreations of ones previously deleted in May. Previous discussions can be found here and here. Those discussions were unanimously in favour of deletion and I can't see how the situation has changed in the last 2 months. Road Wizard 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would {{db-repost}} be appropriate in this case? Luna Santin 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Chicheley 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason as to why they should be deleted. In fact, deleting them would be like deleting the fictional people by belief category. I say we keep 'em. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cat's Tuxedo (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete all. These are very bad.--Mike Selinker 02:27, 14 July 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:Residence halls to Category:University and college dormitories

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 keep --Kbdank71 19:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Halls of residence article was merged into Dormitory, there's no reason to maintain separate categories. - EurekaLott 19:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This would avoid confusion and put like objects together.--M@rēino 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong oppose Dormitory means totally different things in American English and British English. Chicheley 21:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a strong opinion about using British English or American English to describe these. It's just that the articles were merged into the American usage, so the category name should reflect that. I can't see a good reason to keep duplicate categories around because of a naming issue. Is there another name that would work better for you? - EurekaLott 03:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Chicheley. Canadian English prefers Residence as well. BoojiBoy 22:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Chichely. Everytime I see the word "Dorm" I think of the large rooms with rows of beds in residential schools. Halls of Residence are quite different. Why was Halls of residence merged into Dormitory? That is very US-centric. The article should be reintroduced and the link with Oxbridge Colleges emphasised. --Bduke 03:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a slightly different topic, is Category:Residence halls specific enough? Is it worthwhile to consider Category:University and college residence halls (etc.) or does the term imply that on its own? Luna Santin 05:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not aware of any other kind. I would prefer "Halls of residence" though. Chicheley 10:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose or move to Halls of residence. De-merge the articles. In the UK, a Hall of Residence is different to a Domitory. Bluap 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:University and college halls of residence. David Kernow 17:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Chicheley. --Shortfuse 00:27, 16 July 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.

Cities and towns in Italy

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 20:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow up to the recent merging of the separate national cities and towns categories into Category:Cities and towns in Italy as there is only one term for them in Italy. There has been considerable discussion on the talk page and this version seems to be the most popular. I will leave those with a more detailed interest in Italy to decide what to do at an even more local level, but merging the cities and towns categories at the first division subnational entity level will make it much easier for non-Italian, ie most readers, to find the articles about well known towns and cities.

  • Merge/rename all as nom. The 20th region, Sicily, already follows the proposed form. Honbicot 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (or at least Hold on). There is currently a discussion about how to re-name the above categories at Category_talk:Cities and towns in Italy, but consensus has not yet been reached, since there is disagreement about whether the name should be "Cities and towns", "Municipalities", or "Comunes". I recommend giving the discussion at least a few more days to progress, though this umbrella nomination might be useful to at least affirm "whichever title consensus approves, can proceed with category renaming." --Elonka 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has made progress there, but it is time it moved here, where people more familiar with category issues can participate. You seem to imply that this page should be presented with a fait accompli, which in turn implies that you think that interest groups "own" the categories for their subject area of interest. That is no more the case than it is the case that contributors own articles. Honbicot 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! That's a lot of assumptions about what I mean.  :) No, what I mean is that it's a complicated issue, that's taking up a lot of space at Category_talk:Cities and towns in Italy, as different hierarchies are being proposed, and I think it would be major clutter to try and discuss everything here, instead of there. I do agree that it's worthwhile to get as many different viewpoints into the discussion as possible, to help build consensus. I just don't think it's appropriate to propose a firm "this is how it should be done" yet, since discussion is still on-going. As for my own participation, I see myself as a neutral editor who volunteered to help out with CfD, specifically untangling a situation at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 9#Category:Cities and towns in Italy. While working on that merge, I discovered other complicating factors involved with implementing those changes, which I brought up on various talk pages, and then I set up the central discussion location at Category_talk:Cities and towns in Italy to help move the discussion along. I personally have no strong preference how it's done, as long as there's consensus on it. --Elonka 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Cloachland 21:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Chicheley 21:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename all per nom - AKeen 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename all per nom - this is a little beyond the discussion of the moment, but it is worthwhile mentioning that since the Italian term comune can refer to a city or town (or smaller) that the Cities & towns combo means that users don't have to try and grapple with a more specific term. Also, with Sicily we use the the sub-category "Municipalities of the Province of ..." - once again we find this to be the best descriptor of the the term comune (as the actual article says). Lastly, I believe France is divvied up along a similar format. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I have no strong preference either way, but I just want to make sure it's clear. If this proposal succeeds, does that mean that the articles in, say, Category:Towns in Tuscany should be recategorized to Category:Cities and towns in Tuscany, as this proposal suggests, or to Category:Municipalities in Tuscany (as this proposal also suggests, since it recommends the method currently being used in Category:Sicily)? --Elonka 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new category would be "Cities and towns in Tuscany." Tuscany is a region of Italy, as are Sicily, Sardinia, Lombardy, Umbria, etc. Categories beginning with "Municipalities" will be used for province categories - which are subdivisions of regions. For all regions but Sicily, province categories have not even been created ( so we don't need to worry about them here). The region of Tuscany, for example, has 10 provinces within it. The categories up for renaming now are all regions, and would all be correctly renamed to "Cities and towns in *Region*".
The general scheme is visable at Category_talk:Cities_and_towns_in_Italy#Another_Scheme_Option. Sicily, Tuscany, Campania, and all of the other regions should probably follow the Sicilian scheme. On the linked page, there is also an example scheme for Lombardy. I think there has been some confusion because Sicily sometimes seems to be autonomous in relation to Italy, but geographically, it is just another region like Tuscany or Abruzzo, and these regions can follow Sicily's categoriztion scheme easily. - AKeen 01:48, 18 July 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:Major League Baseball regular seasons

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material in articles precisely duplicated sections from articles for Years in baseball. Articles revised to redirects. MisfitToys 18:42, 13 July 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:Neighbourhoods of England to Category:Neighbourhoods in England

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 29 renamed Neighbourhoods of the United Kingdom to Category:Neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom; this subcategory should be renamed for consistency. Tim! 18:27, 13 July 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:Neighbourhoods of Scotland to Category:Neighbourhoods in Scotland

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 29 renamed Neighbourhoods of the United Kingdom to Neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom; this subcategory should be renamed for consistency. Tim! 18:27, 13 July 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:Philippine Muslim Affairs to Category:Islam in the Philippines

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to standard form. Note to User:Jondel: There is no reason why it can't cover all you want under the standard name. All the items should be in the usual subcategories of history, politics etc in any case, not isolated here. Inconsistent naming is not good. Chicheley 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Honbicot 18:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Cloachland 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No! Retain I need a category for ethnic muslims. They, filipino muslims, feel they are separate from mainstream Catholic Filipinos. There are also other topics like terrorism, political involvement,non religious items etc.--Jondel 04:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've addressed that point already. Chicheley 10:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Golfcam 16:32, 14 July 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:Jewish holy days to Category:Jewish holidays

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 keep --Kbdank71 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to normalize spelling. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and Redirect. Holidays has a kind of celebratory connotation, which is not totally accurate for several holy days. For instance, Yom Kippur is a holy day, but it is not quite a day of celebration (though it is considered a very happy day). --DLandTALK 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Yom Kippur is called a Moed in the Torah. Jon513 19:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment and moed means "convocation" in Hebrew, so I am not sure what the relevance of that is. All other major holidays are also called moed. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and (backward) Redirect. Based on my understanding of British English, it would be highly inappropriate to call the Day of Atonement "holiday." --M@rēino 19:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment main article is Jewish holiday, which covers such non-celebratory things as Counting of the Omer and Tisha B'Av. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crz: The subject we are discussing here is the category and not the article. The category serves an entirely different purpose to the article. While the article can talk in very broad terms, the category needs to be precise in order to function as a parent-category for such sub-categories as Category:Shabbat which is not a "Jewish holiday". IZAK 06:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While if I remember correctly, technically speaking, 'holiday' includes Yom Kippur also - since 'holiday' does not equal 'feasting', 'partying', 'having fun', ie positive things - this is not the meaning we understand it to have nowadays. 'Holy days' is a much better description. So, I cannot agree. --Daniel575 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yom Kippur is a holiday, we say Yaleh Viyavo and we wish each other a "Good Yontif." Holy Day doesn't sound right to describe Jewish holidays. The fact is that some holidays are different than others, and Yom Kippur may not be the same as Sukkos, but it's still a holiday. Yossiea 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yossiea: It's not just about Yom Kippur. It's much broader, for example, Category:Shabbat is a sub-category of this parent-category, and Shabbat is most definitely not a "Jewish holiday" but it is a Jewish "holy day". IZAK 06:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per --Daniel575 Golfcam 16:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How about "Significant Dates on the Jewish Calendar" instead? --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 00:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- the current practice is ReligionName holy days. See Category:holy days. Also, keep as holy day as the Jewish religion is the source of what gives that date significance. Whether it is supposed to be a fun day or a reverent day is TBD as either or both, with the example of Christmas having both holy and secular date meanings. -- MrDolomite | Talk 00:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My original thought was that shouldn't this category be more like Bars of Foo? Of course, whether the Bars should be holy days or holidays is to be determined. -- MrDolomite | Talk 00:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Methinks MrDolomite makes no sense...Unless he can express himself in humanoid terms. IZAK 06:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mareino and Daniel575. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the present name is very accurate. I was very careful when I created this parent category in 2004 [1] the word "holiday" was not used as that would by definition then limit it to Jewish holidays only, whereas the words "holy days" can have all of its sub-categries that includes the Category:Shabbat which is not a "Jewish holiday" and the various Jewish sad fast days which are not "holidays" (and it's no use citing "metaphysical explanations" how on some super-natural level, days that commemorate the destruction of the Jewish temples and the deaths of millions is a "holiday"). IZAK 06:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nom's suggestion is valid. New holiday cat should be opened and be subcat of holy day. --Shuki 20:45, 20 July 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:Controversial road traffic legislation

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea in theory, but I can't offhand think of any road traffic legislation which isn't controversial. Even drink-drive laws, which are pretty much universally accepted as a good idea, were controversial when introduced and are still opposed by some of the libertarian motorists. Much of the controversy is, in any case, not actually with the legislation itself, but with details of its application. Are parking restrictions controversial? Not if you live ina town and want to be able to move at peak times they aren't, but if it's your car that's clamped while you buy your newspaper then it sure as hell is. So, it's an arbitrary and not very meaningful classification. Just zis Guy you know? 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Controversial in this instance means that although the legislation was (or maybe was not) introduced on the back of supporting research, that there is compelling, or often more compelling, research which could be used to oppose the basis upon which the legislation was justified. There will also be advocacy groups which campaign specifically against the particular legislation. A rename to something more specific or more concise to cover the above would be acceptable. Legislation which, for example, requires traffic to stop at a stop sign is not controversial is this sense. -De Facto 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't know of any road legislation that does not fall under this umbrella. Perhaps you could list some legislation which isn't controversial? The stop sign legislation most certainly is controversial, since many poeple caught runing stop signs plead that there was no danger posed, in that there was no traffic at that time of day; its application to two-wheeled vehicles is also controversial in that it is easier to miantain control while rolling through than it is to come to a complete stop, a problem which does not apply to four wheel vehicles. The inclusion of decriminalised parking restrictions is another case in point: there is nothing controversial whatsoever about the idea that parking in some places represents an insupportable obstruction to traffic, or that it is not really appropriate to criminalise this behaviour; the "controversy" is about details of enforcement, not the legislation. Ditto speed limits: many of the groups who oppose enforcement of limits go out of their way to state that they are not aganst limits per se, only their application to my driving, as it were. All road legislation is controversial - that is the point. The category is functionally inseperable from the generic road traffic legislation. Just zis Guy you know? 09:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DeFacto. Nova SS 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The word "Controversial" is too loaded to be used in a wikipedia category name. Honbicot 19:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Honbicot Cloachland 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This introduces a matter of opinion where there is no need for it. We could divide the whole of wikipedia between controversial and uncontroversial matters, but sensibly we don't. Chicheley 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whether something is controversial, or not, is a matter of fact, and is valid to note in Wikipedia. The reasons it is controversial may be based on opinions which should be described and attributed in the article itself. -De Facto 08:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chincheley sums it up well. Softgrow 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the articles in the cat (apart from Speed limit) do contain sections of text which deal with a controversial aspect of the legislation in question. On the other hand, there do not appear to be any other significant traffic legislation articles by which to compare. I can see why someone might be interested in the controversial aspects of road legislation - but is a category the best way of dealing with that? If the topic is significant and of interest, the better approach might be to write an article. We do perhaps have a tendency to have a lot of categories because of the flexible nature of this electronic encyclopedia, yet the more categories we have the less useful the category system becomes because categorisation becomes confusing. Hmmmm. Delete. SilkTork 13:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. Golfcam 16:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Honbicot above. Appears not NPOV to contain "Controversial" -- MrDolomite | Talk 00:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV. All the other controversy categories should be deleted for the same reason. Choalbaton 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Honbicot's commenys --ReddyRose 18:51, 16 July 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:New Right (United States) to Category:New Christian Right

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 19:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specificity. Intangible 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just another aspect of Intangible's relentless campaign to assert an idiosyncratic taxonomy into Wikiepdia. Intangible just failed in an atempt to delete this category. The New Christian Right is just a portion of the New Right in the United States. The New Right in the U.S. is a coalition of subsectors that include the Christian Right, Business Internationalists, Business Nationalists, Neoconservatives, Libertarians, and Paleoconservatives, among others.
See:
  • Himmelstein, Jerome L. 1990. To The Right: The Transformation of American Conservatism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Diamond, Sara. 1995. Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Hardisty, Jean V. 1999. Mobilizing Resentment: Conservative Resurgence from the John Birch Society to the Promise Keepers. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Judis, John B. 2000, The Paradox of American Democracy: Elites, Special Interests, and the Betrayal of the Public Trust. New York: Pantheon Books.
This is basic stuff.--Cberlet 15:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "The New Right in the U.S. is a coalition of subsectors that include the Christian Right, Business Internationalists, Business Nationalists, Neoconservatives, Libertarians, and Paleoconservatives, among others." If the Category:New Right (United States) can include neoconservatives, libertarians and others, it should be deleted; make a New Right (United States) article instead. Intangible 15:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, Intangible, there is already a disambiguation page on the New Right that states the following:
  • In the United States, the New Right refers to a conservative political movement that coalesced through grassroots organizing in the years preceding the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater. The Goldwater campaign, though failing to unseat incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson, galvanized the formation of a new political movement. In elite think-tanks and local community organizations alike, new policies, marketing strategies, and electoral strategies were crafted over the succeeding decades. The New Right succeeded in building a policy approach and electoral apparatus that propelled Ronald Reagan into the White House in the 1980 presidential election. The American New Right is distinct from and opposed to the more moderate tradition of the so-called Rockefeller Republicans. Though mostly ignored by scholars until the late 1980s, the formation of the New Right is now one of the fastest-growing areas of historical research. New Right activists denounced abortion, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, and especially affirmative action.
The solution is to link this text to the category, which will list the major groups and individuals identified by scholars as being part of the New Right in the United States.
Please stop attempting to turn our ongoing editing disagreements into a full-scale edit war.--Cberlet 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the solution. Categories should be homogeneous, not heterogeneous. Intangible 21:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be obscure, there are scores of books that list the New Right in the United States as a category with subsectors. Scholars use the category all the time. There is no office with a door labelled "New Right" in the United States. It is a term used to describe a collection of groups, institutions, and individuals.--Cberlet 22:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, there isn't a "New Christian Right" office either, but this naming does allow the category to be specific and homogeneous. Instead you are make ad hoc arguments that do no concern the argument I am making here. Intangible 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that according to Cberlet's definition, the "New Right" includes even the Old Right. That makes it pretty much useless, if not total nonsense. Mirror Vax 02:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Libertarian leftist Roderick Long would also likely be dismayed with being lumped in with Neoconservatives. I agree with Intangible that the New Right article needs to be expanded to properly document such a broad categorization. Let's see what can be done with the article before making it appear as though this definition is non-controversial or oft-used. Dick Clark 05:41, 14 July 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.

All subcategories of Category:AWACS aircraft

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 nominated --Kbdank71 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only like ten different AWACS aircraft in the world, any category below this one has one or two articles in it. - Dammit 13:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge contents to Category:AWACS aircraft and then delete Over-categorization. Kurieeto 13:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you look at the aircraft categories you will probably find similar cases all over the name space. Are we planning to 'cleanup' all of those categories? I suspect that WP:AIRCRAFT would have an objection. Vegaswikian 05:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In categories where there are only a few of that type of aircraft, yes. I think you should never have to browse five subcategories just to find the a similar aircraft (or article in general). I have posted a link to the discussion at WP:AIRCRAFT so they can join along and share their views on it. - Dammit 06:34, 14 July 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:Heretic-HeXen

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 found deleted --Kbdank71 18:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have manually renamed this to Category:Heretic-Hexen. This is now empty and redundant and can be removed. Fragglet 11:50, 13 July 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.

Beaches

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 relist here, none of the cats were tagged --Kbdank71 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 7 categories listed below do not follow the same form as the other 27 national categories:

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:Macau attractions to Category:Visitor attractions in Macau

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the many similar categories for other places. Chicheley 10:12, 13 July 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:Monopoly to Category:Monopoly (game)

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 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:Monopoly (economics) to Category:Monopoly

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 change. I will take advice on what best to do about the idea of "locking" the ambiguous category. I may be able to devise something, an {{ambiguous category}} template, perhaps? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to create a category "Monopoly" in economics, but it turns out that Category:Monopoly is devoted to the board game. I created Category:Monopoly (economics) but this seems silly to me. The board game category should be renamed to Category:Monopoly (game), so Category:Monopoly can be used for the economic concept. JQ 09:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Rightly or wrongly the game is at least as prominent as the economic concept for the average reader, and the category is 20 months older and 17.5 times better populated. Alternative Leave Category:Monopoly (economics) as it is and rename the other one to Category:Monopoly (game). Chicheley 10:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q: What else is going in the economics category? Do we really need it? ×Meegs 10:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Category:Market failure and Category:Anti-competitive behaviour are sufficiently specific. Pending further discussion, I support leaving the game's category un-disambiguated and deleting other. ×Meegs 11:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After a brief exchange on JQ's talk page, I no longer advocate the economic cat's deletion. Instead, I support both of his rename proposals. ×Meegs 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started to populate Category:Monopoly (economics) (more to come) and added as a subcategory category:Monopolies (only one article so far, but there are many candidates). Perhaps my initial request was premature, since the new category was nearly empty. Can people who've argued that the board game should have primary or equal status take another look JQ 01:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems great. I should be clear that I'm not opposed to the change to "Monopoly (game)", just not that "Monopoly" leads to something other than the game.--Mike Selinker 02:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. I still stand with protecting Category:Monopoly so it can not be used. The dabs here make sense. There is no need to debate which is the most important. It does not matter. Dab the categories, it makes everything clear, and move on. Vegaswikian 05:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment is there a do not cat/this cat should be empty tag? 132.205.45.148 22:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a cat redirect, but that does not work in this case since we have 2 targets. Since there is no dab for a cat, locking the article is the only way to prevent its use. If someone knows differently, please jump in. Vegaswikian 05:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - keep as is for disambiguation -- MrDolomite | Talk 00:52, 16 July 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:Vehicles with front bench seating

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit much to classify based on the type of seats or interior features. Vegaswikian 06:48, 13 July 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:Comedy recordings to Category:Comedy albums

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 nominated --Kbdank71 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both cats are for comedy albums. Category:Comedy recordings should be merged and deleted as it's name is ambiguous and not consistent with other album categories. --musicpvm 05:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question I think it's assumed that album implies some kind of audio format, ie CD or vinyl. But it looks like a couple under Category:Comedy recordings were not released in an audio format, only video, ie DVD, VHS. So, while Comedy recordings may not be the right phrase, shouldn't their be a separate category for non-audio format comedy recordings? Joltman 13:00, 17 July 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:Salad Fingers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 --Kbdank71 18:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for some flash animations. Small and without any potential for growth. Delete - Motor (talk) 01:08, 13 July 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.

Mayors by sub-national categories

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The naming convention for mayors by region/place categories as per a CFD discussion on June 24 is to use "Mayors of x" for cities, and "Mayors of places in x" for countries. This proposal is to apply the "Mayors of x" to mayors by city categories that currently do not follow the convention, and is also to apply the "Mayors of places in x" naming convention to mayors by sub-national entity categories like provinces of Canada and states of the USA. The "of places in" phrase avoids any potential conflict of instead using the words "cities", "cities and towns", or something else entirely. I feel these proposed new titles are the most natural and precise wordings possible.

(groupings added by Docu)

--Kurieeto 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The new name is consistent and stops us having to worry whether a place is a county, city, town, or whatever. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Chicheley 10:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. David Kernow 11:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? Are there mayors of anything but cities? Where? Thanks Hmains 05:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming the cities categories to "Mayors of <city>". -- User:Docu
  • Oppose renaming the list category. Current naming is concise and consistent with the others. -- User:Docu
  • Oppose renaming the Canadian prov/state categories. Current naming is concise and descriptive. -- User:Docu
  • Merge the categories by U.S. state with those for "Leaders of cities in ..". Undecided on the name to adopt. I'd doubt use the current "Mayors in .." version. -- User:Docu
  • Undecided for the British mayors categories. -- User:Docu
  • Support for Mayors of CityName, for cities which warrant their own category -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Mayors of places in State/Province/Sub-RegionName, keeping the of places to make it clear that State/Province/Sub-Region is not a city. Helps keep things in a more global scope. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Hawkestone 23:32, 16 July 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_July_13&oldid=1136104654"