Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 9

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< June 8 June 10 >

June 9

edit

Category:Video games featuring cooperative play to Category:Computer and video games featuring cooperative gameplay

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. Vegaswikian 04:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per other CVG categories. Thunderbrand 23:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I created today and was unaware of the accepted naming procedure for the subject. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Frackintoaster 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --SevereTireDamage 08:36, 12 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.
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 but only those listed before late adds. Other ones can be added as a new nomination. Vegaswikian 04:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin: Please note that this nomination has expanded to a deletion vote for many categories listed below.--Mike Selinker 06:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of these categories have been added just today. Shouldn't this nomination be relisted to give it another week for discussion for those who might not have seen a tag? --JeffW 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly could see relisting it for a couple more days. A whole week seems a bit much. Can we put it right below the current day's list as "Extended until June 19" or something?--Mike Selinker 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to list the ones that were listed before today in the work queue to be deleted. They received notification and can be deleted. I think listing the others in a new nomination would be the most correct in terms of process. Vegaswikian 04:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Cindy Crawford, among others, is riddled with over 100 categories -- apparently, one for every company she's ever modelled with. This seems both excessive and... not the sort of thing Wikipedia really needs to categorize so precisely? Most of the categories have only a few articles, fewer than 5-10. This one only includes Crawford's article. Um. So, apologies, I'm new, this just seemed the right way to get the ball rolling if it needs a push. Luna Santin 23:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just back from the Cindy Crawford article and, yes, I agree, there might be a few too many categories listed there!  Perhaps a Category:Models who have worked for more than N agencies category/ies need to be established (where N = 5, 10, 20, 25+) and a List of agencies for which X has modelled for each corresponding model X such as Crawford...?  Regards, David Kernow 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuck! Does someone have the time to nominate all of those for speedy deletion here? We can remove them after 4 days, I believe, if there are no objections. Vegaswikian 00:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete (see below). How else are you going to subdivide models by their work (as opposed to nationality)? This seems a very new process (many of these categories were created by a user in the last couple weeks), so I'd say let's see how it plays out.--Mike Selinker 00:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you think the end of the Cindy Crawford article is fine and that the categories she is in are easy to see? Vegaswikian 03:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I do. But I'd need an answer to the question I asked before I'd vote to delete it. How else is there to subdivide the Models category, other than by nationality? (Answering my own question: There seem to be three simultaneous work-specific ways they are subdivided in this category: by fashion designer (Category:Marc Jacobs models), by magazine (Category:Vogue models), and by brand (Category:Pepsi models). Maybe all of them are wrong. The most restrictive way to categorize models is by agency, which they rarely have more than a couple of. So for Cindy, category:Storm Model Agency models would be a lot better than this forest. So my suggestion would be to shred all this and do that.)--Mike Selinker 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, you do bring up a good point, actually. Especially if this is a recent development that's being worked on, I'd hate to slap somebody's new work in the face like that. Would it make more sense to create Category:Lists of Models, which could then include Marc Jacobs models and Vogue models (etc)? Just putting that out there for thought, seems like a fair compromise. Luna Santin 08:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, make that Category:Lists of fashion models, for better specificity. Luna Santin 09:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've gone to the user's page and invited them to participate in this discussion. It's clear to me that they're well-intentioned and actually adding quite a bit of useful information to Wikipedia. But the method may be unwieldy, and so I hope they'll come over and talk it through. This is a new user with a lot of energy, so I hope we'll all be encouraging here.--Mike Selinker 14:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see any necessity to subdivide models into such obsessively detailed categories, especially when I go to "Category:Models" and find that there are very few models actually listed there, because their categories have been sharpened to the point that they are all but impossible to find. 122 categories (as in Cindy Crawford) is way too many for any article, and I'd like to see many of them gone, although I think there is merit in User:Mike Selinker's suggestion of keeping the agency categories. Everything else looks like obsessive detail to me. Rossrs 11:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole "supermodel" and subcategories thing, is unwieldy, unencyclopedic and POV, so have also nominated that Category:Supermodels be merged into Category:Models. Rossrs 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with consideration to Mike Selinker's suggestions. This whole topic needs discussion as does the Supermodel page which is getting cluttered to the point of not being useful. For lack of participation this one user charges forward with little discussion or response on talk pages. He has added good material but SHOUTS on Edit summaries and seems to believe that he is the only expert. Doc 14:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lil Flip246 has responded on his own talk page, but even with a link here he has not responded here. This is an example of his shouting on his edit summaries for Supermodel and on his own talk page:
26 Apr - (STOP REMOVING MY CONTRIBUTIONS)
18 Apr - (PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE INFO U HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF. I AM A FASHION EXPERT AND KNOW MORE ABOUT SUPERMODELS AND THE INDUSTRY.)
17 Apr - (PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THEM!! I KNOW MORE ABOUT SUPERMODELS THAN YOU)
12 Apr - OKAY WHY ARE YOU CHANGING IT?? I MADE THIS CAT BECAUSE :IT WAS FOR NOTABLE CALVIN KLEIN MODELS. I'M A MODEL EXPERT SO I SHOULD KNOW!
He does not seem to think he needs to get consensus for anything Doc 22:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yipe. Well, nonetheless, it doesn't let us off the hook for finding a consensus ourselves. I think everyone here so far agrees that this categorization system has to go. What springs up in its place, if anything, can be decided later.--Mike Selinker 00:29, 11 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:Football venues in Kyrgystan

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 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling of the country Kyrgyzstan. All (1) articles have already been moved to an appropriately-named category. fuzzy510 22:55, 9 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:East Coast Hockey League players to Category:ECHL 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 per nom. Conscious 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems weird I know, but officially ECHL doesn't stand for anything anymore, it is just a meaningless set of initials. The league renamed itself when they began expanding away from the East Coast of the United States. BoojiBoy 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe Category:ECHL players plus note at the top of the page explaining why "ECHL" is one of those abbreviations left unexpanded will suffice. Regards, David Kernow 11:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's the name of the league, and would only need a disambiguator if there were other ECHLs.--Mike Selinker 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not about being a DAB, it is about expanding abbreviations. Vegaswikian 02:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, and "ECHL" is not an abbreviation. BoojiBoy 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get that. I'm agreeing with the nomination, and saying I don't agree with "(formerly East Coast Hockey League)".--Mike Selinker 07:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom, and follow David Kernow's example of including a note on the page indicating that it no longer stands for anything. Otherwise it gets too unwieldy and difficult to include on pages (plus it just looks really stupid to say ECHL (formerly East Coast Hockey League)). I know we're trying to make things organized on this site, but let's not get stupid with it. Anthony Hit me up... 14:21, 14 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:List of Mexican-American War Veterans

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:Mexican-American War people. Conscious 16:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is filled with people whose significance has not been asserted, and Category:Mexican-American War people already exists. Medtopic 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and/or delete. BoojiBoy 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - but someone needs to go through the artcles in this category - many are just old obituaries, and like the nominator stated, the individuals' notability isn't asserted. I think most of these articles can be deleted.--Nobunaga24 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge That will deal with the list of names added to the page. Osomec 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I'll just move the list to the talk page as it shouldn't be on the category page whether or not the category is appropriate. Osomec 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a new category and all it needs is some time. If all the proper names are added then you would have the likes of Lee, Grant, Sherman, Scott, etc.... This needs to be kept because people are different than veterans and this war had some heavy hitter veterans. If WWI and WWII get a category like this then this war deserves one too.--Looper5920 10:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if kept List of... is not appropriate for a category name. If kept the name should be changed to just be Mexican-American War veterans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffW (talk • contribs)
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:GCSE English Literature Set Texts

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. Vegaswikian 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a category better served by a list. This is not a defining characteristic of the texts categorized. Also opens a nasty door to categorizing every work of literature by what must be thousands of different school curriculums. MakeRocketGoNow 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Chicheley 09:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 15:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; set texts are not a constant and recategorising articles every time the lists are changed is a Very Bad Idea. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, particularly about recategorisation. Ck lostsword|queta! 17:04, 11 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 top-fifty singles

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 (no merge) --William Allen Simpson 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a really bad idea, as this means nearly every single gets a half dozen more categories based on where it charted in which country. The fact that over half of these are by Destiny's Child and Mariah Carey suggests it's mostly one user at work here. The number ones can stay, but this should go.--Mike Selinker 20:31, 9 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:Frigates of the United States Navy to Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy. Vegaswikian 04:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Frigate" and "destroyer escort" are, in a 20th century sense, synonymous. The rest of the world used "frigate" while the USN used "destroyer escort." In 1975 all USN destroyer escorts were renamed frigates. It would be helpful to have one category to contain both, because they are part of one continuous line of evolution. I have placed "frigates" first because it will sort alphabetically with "Frigates of the United Kingdom", etc. I have dropped "Navy" because it is redundant; a frigate is a warship, therefore it must be of the USN. TomTheHand 20:28, 9 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:Singles by number

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 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Designed to parallel category:Albums by number, which we just deleted. I've moved category:Debut singles out of this and into category:Singles.--Mike Selinker 20:26, 9 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:2004 sports events to Category:2004 in sports

edit

Category:2006 sports events to Category:2006 in sports

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. Vegaswikian 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge [both]. Redundant categor[ies]. BoojiBoy 19:18, 9 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:Virginia soccer to Category:Soccer in Virginia

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. Vegaswikian 04:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per naming conventions, see cat:Soccer in the United States etc. Punkmorten 18:50, 9 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:Placename etymology to Category:Placename etymologies

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 16:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placename etymologies doesn't make it clear that this category is for lists of etymologies. JeffW 18:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This cat contains etymologies of particular places as well as lists, so my suggested rename doesn't work. How about just Category:Placename etymologies?
    • Forgive me for talking to myself, but I believe my confusion comes from the fact that we don't generally mix lists of things and things in the same category. We have categories with lists of people and we have categories with people, but I don't know of any categories that mixes them? So what I'll do is create Category:Lists of placename etymologies and move all the lists into it. And I'll modify the heading (and the tag) to make this a proposal to rename the category to its plural. Sorry for the confusion. --JeffW 18:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:aeticlogies should solve this problem. Septentrionalis 17:06, 10 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:Billboard Hot Dance/Club Play artists to Category:Dance/Club music artists

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. Vegaswikian 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of category Robert Moore 00:58 09 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I contest this being av valid request for speedy renaming. It does not seem to fulfill the criteria for such. __meco 09:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Piccadilly 20:57, 9 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:Universal Monsters to Category:Universal monsters

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:Universal Monsters universe. Vegaswikian 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

caps -- ProveIt (talk) 16:05, 7 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:Cities and towns in Italy

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 Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 04:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was going throught this to close, I closed the discussion as delete since the link was red and appeared to have been listed as a delete. This was an error in that it should have been a merge as has been pointed out. I'll create the new cat and do the moves. 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Category:Towns in Italy and Category:Cities in Italy into the new category Category:Cities and towns in Italy. There is currently no distinction in which category ("City" or "Town") municipalities fall into (there is no distinction in Italian either). A categorization scheme like Category:Cities and towns in Sicily, where towns/cities of all sizes are together should probably be adopted.

  • Rename and Merge as per nom- AKeen 16:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Merge per nom. Piccadilly 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Merge per nom. GilliamJF 00:41, 16 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.

Royal mistresses

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. Vegaswikian 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created these, taking the form from the article Mistresses of the Swedish royal family, but in their current form they can be misconstrued, so I would like to suggest a switch to a different form, which is also shorter:

Please note that these are not "by nationality" categories as a fair number of women were not of the same nationality of their royal lover. Also, not all of the royals in question were monarchs.

  • Rename all Chicheley 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carina22 12:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. David Kernow 13:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. If these cats are to be divided by nationality, British should begin with the Union of the Crowns in 1603; otherwise all the mistresses of the 1600's will be entitled to two overlapping cats. Also, if we are going to include every woman ever associated with Charles II, George IV, and Edward VII, these cats will be very large. Septentrionalis 16:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Twittenham 15:59, 11 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:Babenberg to Category:House of Babenberg

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. Vegaswikian 04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category references a royal-nobel family which ruled Austria in the Middle Ages, not a place. Chicheley 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename as nom. Chicheley 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 13:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cats should be short, and the lead article suggests that there is no longer a place called Babenberg. Septentrionalis 16:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Cat names should be short but clarity and consistency are important too. And House of Babenberg is still short. --JeffW 22:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Twittenham 15:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. BoojiBoy 23:23, 11 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:American World War I officers

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 (no merge) --William Allen Simpson 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary category, already well covered by an American WWI vets category and each branch of the military has an officer category. The category doesn't specify what branch of the military, and there is no criteria listed for inclusion - WWI era service (the US entered the war after it had been going on for about 3 years), or in-theater service. Nobunaga24 05:02, 9 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:Cabinet secretaries in the United States to Category:Cabinet secretaries of the United States
and subcategories using "in"

edit

Subcategories of Category:Government ministers by country

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 16:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per here, naming these categories "[occupation] in [country]" seems odd. Suggest they are all renamed using "of" rather than "in". David Kernow 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all as nom. Abstaining for time being. David Kernow 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC), amended 13:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are political offices, not garden-variety occupations. In our occupation-based sections, we classify by occupation + nationality of the person (so the nationality modifies the person, not the occupation itself... widget-makers that are danes, not makers of danish widgets.). These are state-based, and hence the state is modifying the office, not the person (people who work in the state apparatus associated with India, not Indians who work in state apparatuses anywhere). Also, note something like "Government ministers of Canada" implies strongly that they are federal-level office holders, when the cat actually contains a variety of offices at different levels of the federation as well as offices for antecedents states on the territory of Canada not named "Canada". Similar factors come into play for any federal state, and also the UK and so on. There's also a long history in colonial contexts of administrators of particular states not being identified with the domestic nationality--Chris Patten, for instance, is not a "Chinese politician" but someone who was a "Political office-holder in China". The rationale for these is noted at WP:NCCAT. The Tom 03:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes. Did you read this?  Meanwhile, I agree that Chris Patten was a political office-holder in a place. My experience is that the "in" becomes an "of" when a generic description such as "political office-holder" is made more specific. So I guess I'd say he was govenor of Hong Kong. Jane Doe is a minister in a government, but a minister of a country or other region (per ibid.). Maybe that's where the distinction lies; between association with an organization (such as a government) and a region...?  Thanks for your input, David Kernow 04:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Re misleading federal overtones, I agree; how about categorizing these officials as "of" the region for which they are accountable/responsible...?  Regards, David 04:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't catch the first Australian example. In any case, there'd be awkwardness in having "Government ministers of New South Wales" be a subcat of "Government ministers of Australia" because the latter has an intrinsic federal implication rather than a nice super-categoryish feel. The rule of thumb that's sort of evolved is particular offices get the "of" (ie, "Governors-General of Australia", "Premiers of New South Wales" while groups of office of a certain class get the "in" (ie. "Premiers in Australia"). That should certainly be up for renegotiation if we can come up with a cleaner system that's demonstrably better in all aspects, but I personally have yet to be sold on any other kind of delineation. Finally, it's worth pointing out that "Ministers of Australia" implies that the term "Minister of Australia" is commonly used as a descriptor for such offices when to the best of my knowedge such constructions never get used. The Tom 06:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about (1) making {subcategories that contain articles on individuals} subcategories that are "of" the region for which those individuals are/were responsible and accountable; and (2) making/keeping those {higher-level categories that carry only subcategories} categories that use "in (country)", with a line or two of explanation for the "in" on the category page?  Would that work?  (I'd hope the brief explanation – perhaps make it a template – would help folk coming by these categories as I did.)  Something I meant to say before: I acknowledge the thought you (and others) have already given here!  Regards, David 13:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "of". The present names make little sense; at any given time a certain proportion of ministers are on foreign trips. Carina22 12:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although I had earlier supported (and suggested!) this idea. However, there are convincing arguments in favor of keeping it as it is. Also, WP:NCCAT#Political_office-holders prefers the in form for groups of office holders by country and of for singles. So, it specifies Presidents of and Legislators in. ProveIt (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "of" as making sense. And ministers are singles usually: most countries have only 1 minister of defense at a time, so if User:ProveIt's point is conceded "of" is proper here. Does the media really refer to someone as the Home Secretary in Australia? or the Foreign Minister in Germany? rather than "of"? I don't think so unless they are on a diplomatic visit as noted by Carina22.... Carlossuarez46 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "of" for reasons given above. Piccadilly 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "of" --William Allen Simpson 03:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "of" ReeseM 01:48, 12 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 into 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 Rename/Merge The items split out will be kept along with the parent group. They may be nominated again in the future allowing time for consensus to develop. Vegaswikian 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a debate here which proposes the deletion of the Category:Singles by artist. Having received no real outrage at the proposal, I'm listing them for merging and/or renaming. This all follows a successful passage of a deletion recommendation on the category "Weezer singles," on the grounds that it almost entirely overlapped Category:Weezer songs, and that the entire category structure that required splitting songs into two different categories was flawed. Some users follow it, but many others do not. In very rare cases, an artist's work is notable for all of its songs like in Category:The Beatles songs, but in many cases, singles and songs are basically coterminous (e.g., Category:Mariah Carey singles). Basically, those of us who support this want one song category per artist. (Please note that the singles chronology and infobox would be untouched by this proposal. Those are great.)

Here are the ones that everyone seems in agreement should be moved/merged:
Update: All categories tagged and listed here. I've also occasionally added a non-singles category to smooth out the wording of the "songs" categories.--Mike Selinker 01:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate group, here are ones that at least some users recommend be kept for now, till we can figure out how to deal with them.

  • Delete them all too narrow on each. Adambiswanger1 04:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – Singles and non-singles (notable enough for articles) need not be separated; lists of artists' singles, more reliable than categorization, can be found elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Merging the two decreases complication, eases maintenance, and avoids the issue of whether single releases belong in both categories, or merely singles. These categories are all reasonably-sized, and merging them will not sacrifice browsability. ×Meegs 06:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I backed Mike on this when he proposed it on the WikiProject song page, and I support it now. Anthony Hit me up... 12:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, I think... and perhaps produce lists of songs that were singles/B-sides/etc by particular artists, for those seeking this information?  Regards, David Kernow 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a great idea. Especially, that would put them in chronological order, to match the singles by year categories.--Mike Selinker 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Much tidier. Valiantis 13:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Will all of the others need to be tagged before any merge? If so, can someone start tagging? We probably need to have the entire list at close of discussion to list for the bots. Vegaswikian 16:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a big change, so I wanted to make sure that everyone wanted to do this before listing the rest. Let's wait a couple days to make sure we have consensus.--Mike Selinker 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy enough for a merge where the singles and songs categories are coterminous at present, but - as pointed out in the nomination - there are others where this is not the case. In the case of The Beatles in particular, the current organisation has considerable advantages, and I can imagine that the same might well be true for several other artists whose album tracks are notable enough to have separate articles. So basically merge all those currently coterminous definitely, but others should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Saw the renaming tag on a couple of cats I work with, and it was a relief. — Catherine\talk 17:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gotta get Duran Duran right. (Actually, that Duran Duran discography could serve as a template for what happens with The Beatles, etc. That's fine work, Catherine.)--Mike Selinker 18:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Well argued nom and this issue has troubled me in the past too. A headsup has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles as I see some discussion about whether The Beatles might be an exception. --kingboyk 09:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Very clear points; the distinction between "single" and "song" seems to be (with noted exceptions) something less than encyclopedic. Go for it. --Mashford 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know my 1 little keep won't matter against all the above comments, but in my experience, namely, trying to make templates for song navigation, knowing which were singles was essential. Without the category, I would have had to check every single article (this was about the Beatles, who have an article for just about every song in existance, so that's no small task). -Goldom (t) (Review) 17:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge WITH EXCEPTIONS There are a number of artists for which it is important to note the differences between songs, singles, B-sides and so forth. The rules for whether an artist is important should be documented and made accessible somewhere. At least the artists on [[User:Mike Selinker]|]'s list a few comments above would need to be covered by the exceptions. This comment is NOT in support of a straight merge and should not be taken as such. Note that while I really like how Catherine did the Duran Duran discography, that seems a separate topic (The Beatles discography while different, is also a fine piece of work...)++Lar: t/c 18:00, 16 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:Deceased fictional characters

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 (no merge) --William Allen Simpson 01:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, broad, and so sparsely populated I find it difficult to believe it is useful. Lkjhgfdsa 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Spoilerific! - EurekaLott 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No living/dead categories for fictional people.--Mike Selinker 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chicheley 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above, and many others. ×Meegs 07:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom etc plus if it is populated earnestly, most fictional characters will die eventually. (And to show EurekaLott and Mike Selinker that I am not entirely insane. :) ) -Lady Aleena @ 19:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do like the point that most fictional characters will die eventually. Let's see, if Anne of Green Gables was published in 1908, and Anne is 16 at the end of the novel, then that makes her ... 114. Yup, probably dead by now. :^) --Mike Selinker 01:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rossrs 11:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:Deaths in fiction, restricted to notable deaths described in the fiction, like Little Nell, might be useful, but would be very large. Septentrionalis 17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just seems unnecessary. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really a nonsensical category, as fictional characters are always alive in some part of some fictional work, unless they're introduced as already having died before the story began, or if they're undead, blah blah blah. And sometimes after their death is depicted, a subsequent story brings them back; so do we put Spock or Superman in this category? Worthless. I like Lady Aleena's point above as well. Postdlf 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MakeRocketGoNow 17:57, 12 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_9&oldid=1114636170"