Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 18

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< June 17 June 19 >

June 18 edit

Singles by genre to Songs by genre 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 all. the wub "?!" 10:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less clear than the nomination below, but still worth doing, sez I. The "Songs by genre" categories are much better maintained than these.--Mike Selinker 06:05, 19 June 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.

Singles by artist nationality to Songs by nationality 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 all. the wub "?!" 10:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the deletion of Singles by artist, these should merge with their category:Songs by nationality counterparts.--Mike Selinker 06:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Musicpvm 06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Osomec 16:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I wonder if these could be named better though. Songs by Spanish artists? Maybe not. ×Meegs 17:59, 19 June 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:Multiracial people 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The global cateogory is a confused mess. It is a worldwide category, but it is justified on the basis of a U.S. census definition. Everyone is multiracial, so how far back do you go? This isn't a defining characteristic so it is POV category clutter. Hawkestone 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Hawkestone 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Sumahoy 01:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I have tried, but I can't put it any better than the nom did. Grandmasterka 02:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. In case you haven't noticed, we have Category:Italian-Americans, Category:Afro-Brazilians, and dozens upon dozens of other categories that break down wikipedia's biographies by race. Deleting the multiracial categories will not change the fact that multi-racial people exist, and wish to be identified as such. If you really have a problem with the American definition of race being used, then move everything to Category:Multiracial Americans, but don't delete the category. Race is not POV any more than nationality, sexuality, or religious membership are POV. Yes, they are social constructs, but someone's membership in that social construct is a provable, verifiable FACT of life that affects that person's day-to-day life. You may not like it or how it makes you feel, but you cannot wave it away by voting your personal preferences in CFD.--M@rēino 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- The question is whether the race or ethnicity is notable, an essential part of the article(s), and people wish to be identified as such. Of the few that I checked, not a single article has a verifiable citation about the wishes of the people involved! Moreover, Mareino is mistaken. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), which requires "Neutrality", "Occupation", and (optionally) "Residence". S/he cites a guideline, but failed to quote the very next words: Note: Wikipedians are divided about whether categories should be used for such topics, and might propose such categories for deletion. --William Allen Simpson 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI believe that you are intentionally distorting my comments. What matters is that there are a class of people who belong to more than one race, and who take offense to being considered something other than what they are, just the same as how most Canadians don't much like it if you say they're from the US because it's "close enough". Wikipedia is not a fan club site, so we have to report the verifiable truth, even if the people we're reporting about don't make any public statements one way or the other. For example, Bill Clinton is white whether he wants to be or not, and in fact it would be inappropriate to dig up some quote from Clinton just so that we could put him into a "white people" category. If you really do want to read about people who are proud of their multiracial heritage, read Cher and Hines Ward.--M@rēino 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Politically correct games. The U.S. Census's policies reflect a PC agenda, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Osomec 16:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is pretending that multiracial people don't exist "neutral"? Bearcat 05:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No such pretence is being made, but it has been observed that all people are multiracial and any definition of the term is arbitary. Osomec 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most ridiculous reason for deletion I've heard. This has absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness" (a phrase which I have come to loathe). --Saforrest 20:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you find a rigorous application of NPOV to be ridiculous. A fashionable bias is still a bias, but it is less likely to be recognised as such than any other type of bias. The American government does not observe NPOV, so Wikipedia can't always follow its lead. Osomec 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the criteria (US Census) is arbitrary and this is unverifiable. Do we really want to get into questions like "how Jewish should he be to be called Jewish-American?" and other such things? --Saforrest 20:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Saforrest, first of all, it is a blantant falsehood that US Census criteria is unverifiable. It's published by the Federal government and discussed on Wikipedia! Also, your "how Jewish" argument is an argument for deleting ALL race, religion, and ethnicity category, it fails to explain how THIS category is less valid. Finally, it is against Wiki rules to delete a page just b/c you don't like the current version. If you can come up with better text for the criteria, that's what the edit button is for. In fact, I'll suggest a different criterion, one that by definition cannot be considered arbitrary: if someone is listed under more than one of Wikipedia's racial categories, they must be listed under the Multiracial category as well. --M@rēino 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep category:multiracial people for the US government census definition (rename if necessary). Keep category:Eurasians, category:Hapas, category:coloured South Africans too. — Instantnood 14:29, 24 June 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.

More Singles by artist to Songs by artist 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/rename all. the wub "?!" 10:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussion and "Rename" consensus here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 9#Singles by artist into Songs by artist.

--Musicpvm 23:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/rename and also rename:

Sorry I missed those the first time through.--Mike Selinker 05:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: as I understand WP:SONG, in most cases, only artists' singles are notable. If these "song" categories were created, wouldn't there be more of an encouragement for fans to come and write articles about track 4 of Get Rich or Die Tryin', etc.? -- getcrunk ? 12:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Getcrunk makes a good point. Also I think there is something about "so and so's songs" that suggests more of a songwriting association, and also implies some kind of "ownership" of the song itself rather than merely being the perpetrator of a particular rendition. Example : Kylie Minogue's version of "Over the Rainbow" can be called a "Kylie Minogue single" but I shudder to think of it as a "Kylie Minogue song" - it ain't. Destiny's Child's "Emotion" could be called a Bee Gees song, and the truth could be stretched to call it a Samantha Sang song but it's certainly not a "Destiny's Child song". It is however a "Destiny's Child" single (though it's not categorised in Category:Destiny's Child singles yet). Steps did more cover versions than originals, and didn't write any of their "original" hits, Westlife same thing. It's almost like giving them a credibility they haven't earned, or am I seeing too much in this subtle shift of nuance? I now realize that a large number of artists have been changed from "X's singles" to "X's songs" but I think it's less accurate, and as Getcrunk says, encourages a free for all in creating articles for nonnotable album tracks. I can see though, that these must be changed because makes consistent with the numerous categories that have already been changed. Rossrs 14:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that no change lets us off the hook for being vigilant, nor does it remove the power of the AfD. The song should be notable for the artist's version for it to get the category tag. But I disagree that Emotion isn't a Destiny's Child song. I remember when my wife, whose musical tastes were formed in the early 1980s, was surprised to learn years later that Ball of Confusion wasn't originally a Love and Rockets song. Their version became just as strongly notable to her as The Temptations' version was to me. Factually the timeline is Tempts->L&R, but for her time ran backwards. I imagine Emotion's timeline will also run the other way for a lot of young people.--Mike Selinker 14:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure it will too, and I'm equally sure that many younger people listening to Westlife or Steps (or many others) have no clue that the songs have been around for years. I've been caught myself - I thought Pearl Jam's "Last Kiss" was an original and I can think of other examples. Point taken. Of all the possibilities for naming these categories, I can't see one that is without some form of ambiguity, but this is probably the best of them. Rossrs 15:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge as per nom. Rossrs 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I can't imagine there could be a simple, agreeable method of assigning songs to a single artist given the wide variety of situations. Good lord, think about "All the Young Dudes", written by David Bowie, first recorded by Mott the Hoople, and then later by Bowie. On getcrunk's issue, I reason that some genres — especially in the last few decades — are not driven by the single, and that many non-single articles are appropriate and necessitate the songs categories. The cats may encourage articles about non-notable songs, but I suspect not as much as partially-linked track listings in album articles do, and, as Mike said, there's still AfD. ×Meegs 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / rename all per last week's CfD discussion. ×Meegs 16:20, 19 June 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:Vivendi Universal subsidiaries to Category:Vivendi subsidiaries 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. the wub "?!" 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Vivendi dropped the "Universal" portion of its name. --FuriousFreddy 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently they're now called Vivendi SA... so wouldn't Category:Vivendi SA subsidiaries be most correct? --W.marsh 23:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears a name change is needed, but I'm not well-versed in naming conventions here, just yet, so I'll bite my tongue on any more specific recommendations for now.. Luna Santin 07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. SA is not part of the name, but simply a legal designation, like the British plc and they are not normally included. I have moved Vivendi to Vivendi (disambiguation) and requested that Vivendi SA is moved to Vivendi as it is the primary current meaning. Osomec 16:44, 19 June 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:Publishers to Category:Publishing companies 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 postpone until split performed. Conscious 08:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a split than a rename, but since it would likely affect many categorizers, I thought I'd bring it here rather than being bold and just doing it. The subcategories of this category mainly use "publishing companies" in the names thereof. The category text says the category is for companies yet it includes some articles and categories that are for the inclusive sense of publisher that also includes people. Thus I propose creating a new category Category:Publishing companies which would take almost all of what is in Category:Publishers and would hold its current place in the hierarchy, while Category:Publishers itself would remain to be a parent of the new category and Category:Publishers (people) as well as a child of Category:Publishing Caerwine Caerwhine 22:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since to my eye, the consensus was to create the new category, I've done so and have begun to depopulate Category:Publishers of most of its articles and categories. All the categories that need moving have been moved, but it may be a day or so before the articles are finished. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:56, 27 June 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:Diet and Food fads 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 Already deleted - TexasAndroid 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate, see Category:Diet and food fads -- ProveIt (talk) 22:40, 18 June 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:Polish-Americans in US politics and policy 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, unique and awkward. category:Polish-American politicians also exists. Chicheley 21:56, 18 June 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:Holders of First Class Honours degrees 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A strange collection of real and fictional people - EurekaLott 20:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What matters is what people actually achieve later on. Chicheley 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic. Not fast the age of twenty-two anyway. Osomec 16:16, 19 June 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:Sibghatullah 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this means ... inexplicable -- ProveIt (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real context or explanation. Grandmasterka 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - huh? As suggested, I saw the article about Sabians and am none the wiser. Rossrs 14:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would recommend holding off until some brave Wikipedian can do more research. User:Sibghatullah started the Godfearers article (probably poorly named), and it seems to be his or her religion (look at the User page). I don't know if this is a personal religion or just a very, very obscure one. The category can probably be deleted, but the two articles referenced might be moved into a proper religious category and wikified some more. SnowFire 19:39, 22 June 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:Number two draft picks 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horrid naming notwithstanding, this category isn't particularly encyclopedic (it's actually a group of National Hockey Leaguers who were drafted second overall). At a minimum the category needs renaming, but I would prefer a delete since the info is already listified and also covered by the more vast Category:National Hockey League first round draft picks. BoojiBoy 20:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 20:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not really useful as a category even if named properly. The goal of categories isn't to duplicate every plausible piece of information in the article. --W.marsh 21:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete categorycruft, per W.marsh. Grandmasterka 02:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. ×Meegs 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Waste of space and all the reasons above. --Djsasso 19:08, 23 June 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:Massachusetts Flags → Category:Massachusetts flags 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 to Category:Flags and insignia of Massachusetts. the wub "?!" 10:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename To change Flags to flags.—Markles 20:28, 18 June 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:Prominent non-Oscar winners 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category for people who haven't done something would set an interesting precedent. JW 20:22, 18 June 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:U.S. interstate compacts → Category:United States interstate compacts 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. the wub "?!" 10:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: U.S. → United States. —Markles 20:20, 18 June 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:Blind Date contestants 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, Unless that is why they are notable. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A short list in Blind Date would more than suffice. Rossrs 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blind Date contestants (at least in the USA version) are only on for a single episode, and the show is not so popular that someone becomes notable for the rest of time (see Wikipedia:recentism) by a single appearance. I would also oppose a list as Rossrs proposes, b/c there are thousands of constestants by now. --M@rēino 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what I meant about the list I would strongly oppose a full list too, and I said "a short list would suffice". What I meant was in the article it could say something like "Some "Blind Date" contestants such as A, B, C and D went on to establish notable careers in showbusiness". Or "A, B, C and D were contestants on "Blind Date" before starting their showbusiness careers. A list of the "thousands of contestants" would be insane. Rossrs 09:05, 20 June 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:Anime Influenced Animation to Category:Amerime 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 to Category:Anime-influenced animation. Conscious 08:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To use common name, see Amerime -- ProveIt (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "amerime" (or even worse, "americanime") as a coined term is still rather disputed, as from the recent debate for deletion. In any case the term is far from "widely" used. I say keep the category name, it's more immediately clear in its definition. Not to mention this category already includes non-American shows in it. --SevereTireDamage 23:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no consensus for a new name, rename to Category:Anime-influenced animation. David Kernow 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please rename Amerime to match whatever name the category ends up with. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:58, 20 June 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:BTCC drivers to Category:British Touring Car Championship drivers edit

and

Category:WTCC drivers to Category:World Touring Car Championship drivers 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. Conscious 08:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand [both] -- ProveIt (talk) 19:19, 18 June 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:Member of Pershing Rifles to Category:Members of the Pershing Rifles 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. the wub "?!" 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plural -- ProveIt (talk) 18:40, 18 June 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:Retailers of New Zealand to Category:Retailing in New Zealand 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 withdrawn - EurekaLott 03:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match siblings in Category:Retailing by country -- ProveIt (talk) 18:31, 18 June 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:Washington law and justice → Category:Washington law 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. the wub "?!" 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. All of the other subcategories of Category:State law in the United States use "foo law" as their category name. —Markles 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Osomec 14:42, 22 June 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:Small Towns in Durham 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. the wub "?!" 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Villages in County Durham or Category:Towns in County Durham -- ProveIt (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete as this category appears to be a joke. The only entry was Sunderland which was at one time the largest town in County Durham, and still would be if it was in modern Durham. But it is now in Tyne and Wear and places in England are categorised by ceremonial county not historical county. It has also had official city status since 1992 (there are only 50 cities in England). I have taken the liberty of removing it as its inclusion is patent nonsense Osomec 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Osomec. Possibly a manifestation of Newcastle-Sunderland rivalry and certainly a bad idea. Chicheley 18:53, 24 June 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:BAMF 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Means Bad Ass Mother Fucker, not widely used. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic delete and thanks to ProveIt for the nom Paul 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh... Very emphatic delete for many obvious reasons. The definition of POV. Grandmasterka 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 16:25, 19 June 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:Air bearings 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam for www.airfloatsys.com -- ProveIt (talk) 17:39, 18 June 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:Cannabis portal to Category:Portal:Cannabis 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 withdrawn. the wub "?!" 10:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent, to match other members of Category:Portals. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; I guess using colons in these category names is accepted...?  David Kernow 11:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC), amended 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good point, I'm not entirely sure. However, if so we should address all the portal cats at once. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since we recently decided against pseudo double namespaces in the form of Category:Foo, I suspect not. They all need to be done at once, though - I'll make a mass nomination now. These two cats need to be merged whatever the outcome. SeventyThree(Talk) 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
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:Sioux Falls Stampede people to Category:Sioux Falls Stampede players 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. Conscious 08:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports team, people within the category are players. "People" is too generic. BoojiBoy 14:32, 18 June 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:Scepticism to Category:Skepticism 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 redirect. Conscious 08:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Skepticism" appears to be more widely used on Wikipedia than "scepticism". For example, skepticism is the article that scepticism redirects to. See also: Category:Scientific skepticism, Philosophical skepticism, and Category:Environmental skepticism. Kurieeto 14:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. WP:MOS does not dictate a change is necessary and I prefer the "sceptic" spelling. BoojiBoy 16:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect; My dictionary prefers the latter, but notes the former is a variation. Since both are correct, there should be at least one redirect. I slightly prefer the common spelling, see Skeptical Inquirer; -- ProveIt (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To clarify what I imagine BoojiBoy realizes, this is a British vs US spelling point and WP:MOS on the subject should be followed. —Blotwell 17:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the WP:MOS, I have no problem with local usages in category titles. The reason for the nomination simply stems from the fact that I don't see a reason why the article Skepticism, and its self-category, Category:Scepticism, should have differently spelled titles. As a related example, Category:Organizations is the self-cat of Organization - both use the same usage convention, and it is noted in the first words of organization that "organisation" is an alternate spelling. Sub-categories of Category:Organizations then abide by local usages, such as Category:Organisations based in Australia and Category:Organizations based in Bulgaria. Kurieeto 18:34, 18 June 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:2000 AD creators to Category:2000AD creators 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 nomination. Conscious 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that can't be done as the current naming policy stands. As the naming stands it is 2000 AD (comic) and so naming cascades from that. Only a couple of weeks ago the category 2000AD characters was renamed 2000 AD characters [1] so, as things stand the name of the creators' category has to be as it is. That said the comics name is 2000AD and I'd like to get the whole thing renamed without the sapce which would then trickle down to the speedy renaming of the categories. So I don't object to this but it can't actually be done because of a larger issue that needs addressing. I'd suggest we take this to the Talk page see if we can reach a consensus and then return to this issue and get all th e categories fixed. (Emperor 13:49, 18 June 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:Notorious criminals 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems highly subjective, no criteria has even been defined for what "notorious" would mean. We have lots of categories from criminals by type of crime (Category:Serial killers, Category:Rapists, Category:Fraudsters, a etc.) don't really see the need for a subjective one. Presumably if someone has an article in a criminal category, they're "notorious" in some way in the first place. W.marsh 12:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as per nom, and the lack of definition for the word "notorious" leads to the very disparate group of individuals listed. Categories by type of crime, rather than perception of how "bad" the crime was, makes more sense, and we already have such categories. Rossrs 13:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Landolitan 15:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yep. Highly subjective. --Woohookitty(meow) 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-reasoned nom. Grandmasterka 03:03, 19 June 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:Sai Kung 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Sai Kung Town. minghong 08:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, forgive me for not knowing better. It looks like Sai Kung is both the name of a city, and of a province or district of some sort, and the Sai Kung article was moved to solve that issue? If that's the case, I'd recommend placing a disambiguation notice at the top of each article (or, if there are more uses, a full disambig page), and I would also support moving the categories to match, I think. Luna Santin 08:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is everything readily fit into category:Sai Kung Town? If yes, turn it into a {{categoryredirect}}. Don't do so if the content of category:Sai Kung does not readily fit into the new category. By the way, category:Sai Kung was depopulated before this CfR nomination, in violation of normal procedures. — Instantnood 14:57, 24 June 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:Free IRC clients to Category:Free IRC and instant messaging software 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. Conscious 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no category for instant messaging free software, and if one was made, the majority of articles would overlap with the existing "Free IRC category" category. The technologies are very similar and many modern implementation of either technology implement both technologies. Putting both in one slightly broader category makes more sense than having two smaller categories with large duplication. Gronky 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to see if there is more consensus on this item. Vegaswikian 07:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Free Internet Relay Chat clients matches the article name. IRC is a type of instant messaging software. Vegaswikian 07:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. I'm sure these categories can be mmore structured than what you're proposing. the IRC client category could be (is?) a subcategory if the free IM client category, or software that implements both techs could be in both categories. --Snarius 00:53, 20 June 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:Mad scientists 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. Conscious 08:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted by consensus (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 27). The same reasons for deletion still apply here: any fictional scientist who has any sort of unconventional mannerisms, techniques, or theories apparently qualifies as 'mad' for the purposes of this category. Are the Ghostbusters mad scientists? What about Seth Brundle from The Fly? At what point does 'mad' become an objective qualifier? Can there ever be accurate and NPOV criteria for inclusion in this category? -Sean Curtin 05:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of these are not members, and would need to be merged to Category:Fictional scientists. ×Meegs 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: well, I see the general rationale for wanting to keep the category, but I would definitely prefer if we can find a more precise term than "mad scientist". I also doubt many people would be mindful of your "evil"/"mad" differences when categorizing articles. Maybe "Category:Fictional antagonistic scientists" or something? Dunno. 24.19.184.243 04:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment There's actually a nice article on Mad scientist. The concept is definately known as that. --Snarius 05:39, 23 June 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:Computer game actors to Category:Computer and video game actors 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. the wub "?!" 16:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with all CVG-related categories. Pikawil 05:44, 18 June 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:Anime clubs and organizations in Canada 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 04:44, 18 June 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:CoverGirl Model to Category:CoverGirls 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 per nom. Conscious 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically spared this one from the carnage in category:Models because it's the only one that meets the same criterion as category:Victoria's Secret Angels or category:Playboy Playmates: an elite sorority of models (that, not incidentally, can be referred to without the word "models"). But it's still a bad category name, so I suggest a rename.--Mike Selinker 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indifferent to keeping or not (not that we're discussing that here), but definitely rename if kept. If somebody finds an objection to "CoverGirls", I'll switch my vote to "CoverGirl models".Luna Santin 07:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also not sure about keeping, but if it stays Rename per nom. Vegaswikian 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:CoverGirl models if category kept. David Kernow 11:23, 19 June 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: Mythic beings in Lithuanian mythology to Category:Lithuanian deities 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. Conscious 08:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate purposes, only Category:Mythic beings in Lithuanian mythology is a really awkward title. Category:Lithuanian deities is consistent with other mythology category trees. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:27, 18 June 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:Deaths by apoplexy to Category:Persons who died from stroke 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 to Category:Deaths by stroke. Conscious 08:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Apoplexy" is the outdated term for "stroke". Regardless of when the person died, I believe the use of the modern term "stroke" would maintain consistency throughout the biographies.--Michael David 02:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if it’s proper procedure for me to place an additional comment here at this stage, but I felt it was important to say this. I agree with the call for consistency in changing the Category name to “Deaths by stroke”. However, to be linguistically correct, it should be “Deaths from stroke”. In any cause of death statement the correct language is “Death from [the effects of] whatever”.--Michael David 17:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Death by" is improper English, it's just archaic. Death by strangulation, death by drowning, death by chocolate. It has a legalistic overtone, like the result from a coroner's inquest. --JeffW 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strangulation & drowning, as with hanging, etc. are methods. These persons died from asphyxiation, and, in the case of hanging probably (hopefully) a severed spine. In all these cases these persons died from the effects of blood loss to the brain. Michael David 00:16, 20 June 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:Canadian Baptists 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 keep. Conscious 08:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Category of 1. Pointless categorization by country of transnational denominational structure, by somebody completely ignorant about the actual denominations involved. We already categorize people by country and profession, there's no need for religion and country. --William Allen Simpson 02:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cut out the abuse can't you? Chicheley 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are exactly three (3) of these categories, all now up for deletion, and you created all of them recently. It is best to have folks knowledgable about the subject matter arranging categories. It is not abusive to note actual and admitted ignorance. If you prefer, I'll cite the Talk page admissions. That would be embarassing, but not abusive. -- William Allen Simpson 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other nationality by religion categories: 10 of Catholics, 7 of Muslims, 46 of Jews and many others. There were probably over a hundred before I created any, rather than none as William Allen Simpson implies. I have nothing to be embarrassed about, so here is the "talk page admission": "So I forgot for a minute that U.S. Baptists are divided into two main streams (but I have read about it before)". Believe it or not, American denominational disputes aren't very important to non-Americans, and you have to be deeply myopic and isolated to assume they are. If you want to know how you look there is an article about it: Ugly American. However, not all Americans are like that. I made the renaming proposal below in response to a polite reminder by youngamerican (talk). Chicheley 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is little different from sub-dividing an occupational category by nationality. It improves access. ReeseM 03:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. Religion has strong national aspects. This category allows relevant articles to be placed in Category:Religion in Canada in a tidy fashion. Osomec 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Baptists from Canada." Chicheley set me straight on naming conventions, but the possible confusion caused by the existence of American Baptists as a denomination warrants us going to our default option #2 to make the category as clear as possible. If not renamed, however, I would support keeping this category as a useful new path towards sorting overcrowded/eventually overcrowded categories. youngamerican (talk) 01:59, 20 June 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:English Baptists 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 keep. Conscious 08:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Category of 2. Pointless categorization by country of transnational denominational structure, by somebody completely ignorant about the actual denominations involved. We already categorize people by country and profession, there's no need for religion and country. --William Allen Simpson 02:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Gee thanks for the insult, you're such a nice guy. There are already a good number of these categories and I'm building on that. If you can improve the system, please do so, but can't you cut out the abuse? Chicheley 02:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are exactly three (3) of these categories, all now up for deletion, and you created all of them recently. Note that I did not identify you, but you just identified yourself. --William Allen Simpson 03:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone could have checked to see who was being abused so that excuse just doesn't wash. You should be civil because you owe it to yourself, not because you might get away with being uncivil. Chicheley 03:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is little different from sub-dividing an occupational category by nationality. It improves access. ReeseM 03:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and populate. Religion has strong national aspects. This category allows relevant articles to be placed in Category:Religion in England in a tidy fashion. Osomec 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Baptists from England." Chicheley set me straight on naming conventions, but the possible confusion caused by the existence of American Baptists as a denomination warrants us going to our default option #2 to make the category as clear as possible. If not renamed, however, I would support keeping this category as a useful new path towards sorting overcrowded/eventually overcrowded categories. youngamerican (talk) 02:00, 20 June 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:Abolitionists by country to Category:Abolitionists by nationality 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 to Category:Abolitionists. Conscious 08:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nationality" is normally used for categories of people. Chicheley 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC). *Rename as nom. Chicheley 01:53, 18 June 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:Ice-named rappers 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just plained silly. --FuriousFreddy 01:26, 18 June 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:Breast cancer survivors who died from other causes 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 to Category:Breast cancer survivors. Conscious 08:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization. (When are we getting Boolean category searches?) —Centrx→talk 00:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This takes things too far. We all know lots of women have suffered breast cancer. It's very sad and some famous examples can be given in an article, but a category is over the top. Chicheley 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On the bright side, the inclusion criteria are nice and clear. But I'm not sure that it's a good category, for two reasons. First, I'm not sure that cause of death is usually a highly notable characteristic (when we think "Walt Disney," we don't remember, "Oh, that guy who died of a heart attack," for instance). Second... wouldn't it be true that most cancer survivors die of other causes, anyway? Certainly mention this in their articles, but I don't think it's a category. Luna Santin 07:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Breast cancer survivors; we don't typically have separate cats for the living and the dead. Category:Breast cancer survivors has its own problems (its body includes a huge list, and the cat contains both articles and wikipedia users), but that is another discussion. ×Meegs 10:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both this and Category:Breast cancer survivors. A major life event no doubt, but not an encyclopedic one. Osomec 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Meegs. I don't support Osomec's suggestion to delete category:Breast cancer survivors, as people are notable for having this while alive. (It's possible that the category name is POV, but I think a little leeway is okay there.)--Mike Selinker 17:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Meegs. My understanding is that this is actually 'famous' people who were diagnosed with breast cancer. Many breast cancer patients are extremely interested in knowing which famous person was personally affected by the disease, and many of them have referenced the information on support lists, etc. It's the type of information that is normally very difficult to locate in one location. Bcsurvivor 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Meegs. Is it possible to have a category called: Category:Diagnosed with breast cancer or Category:Breast cancer diagnosis - that would include anyone (especially famous people) diagnosed with breast cancer whether they survived or not and whether they died due to breast cancer or another cause? Bcsurvivor 10:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Meegs. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:44, 20 June 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:Civil rights activists in the United States to Category:American civil rights activists 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. Conscious 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't match the standard form, as in Category:American activists. Chicheley 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep as Category:American civil rights activists could/would include American civil rights activists campaigning outside the United States. David Kernow 18:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't matter. Chicheley 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that'd be a substantive shift in the category's scope...?  Apologies if I'm missing something obvious. Regards, David 01:10, 25 June 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_June_18&oldid=1136104439"