Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 30

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 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym to full title; DARPA might be commonly used, but lets not go by the example of the U.S. military (plus, the article uses the full title). Paul 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We've had this one fairly recently. I think DARPA is way better known than the full name, unlike the hockey leagues above.--Mike Selinker 07:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Feb 27 CFD. The argument I made then was "I generally favor expanding acronyms and trying to matching category names to article names, but I have to make an exception when the full name is this much less-known than its acronym. I'd say the same about Category:NASA". ×Meegs 12:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. NASA is familiar to the general public around the world, but this isn't. Bhoeble 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As per my vote last time this was discussed. This organisation is better known by its acronym than by its full name, but more to the point, expanding it (IMO) tells us very little about what it is (unlike the Hockey leagues above which are incomprehensible when abbreviated but self-explanatory when expanded). Valiantis 13:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Valiantis. Postdlf 13:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- sorry geeks, but you're wrong. It was once better known as "ARPA", and we've enshrined the .ARPA. at the root of the inverse Domain lookups, but "DARPA" is relatively recent and utterly unknown to the general public. Expanding it tells folks something other than the bare letters. Even then, it's fairly meaningless to the general public. --William Allen Simpson 00:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From 1972 to 1993, it was known as DARPA[1]. -- Usgnus 18:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whether or not DARPA is a commonly known acronym, can we please provide the thing's full name in the damn article title? Is the actual name of this (or any) organization somehow irrelevant or unimportant enough that we use an abbreviation as its title? I really, really, really cannot conceive of any reason that an article title would be an acronym, whether it is this, or NASA, or whatever. Paul 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a discussion on the category. The article is already called Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Valiantis 14:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The name is clear and it matches the article. Sumahoy 15:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. NASA is a name that is know and people also know what they do. DARPA may be what many know the agency as but they also think that it runs races through the desert. That for me is a big difference. Like any military agency the name should be spelled out. Vegaswikian 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match the lead article. CalJW 19:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I've never heard of it. That makes this name a problem for me, but the full name shouldn't be a problem for people that have heard of it. ReeseM 03:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Not on the same level as NASA (and why shouldn't that be spelled out in full too?). Honbicot 20:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per the article: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Hawkestone 00:41, 6 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.

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 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-conformance with "by country" categorization conventions as stated above. — May. 28, '06 [05:38] <freak|talk>

• Objection On a "point of order", cities are not covered by the "by country" rules. There are not cast-iron conventions on these cats so a discussion should be held. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiantis (talk • contribs) 2006 May 30 14:10 UTC.
• Rename -- Didn't find any verifiable documentation that these persons self-identify as Jo'burghers. Whereas some other cities have fairly well-known designations, I'd support renaming them as well (such as my locale, "Category:Ann Arborites"). There are several other names for Ann Arborites, not all of them complimentary. -- William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per William Allen Simpson. Bhoeble 13:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I think it is a fairly common term of self-identification (although I'm a non-South African I'm familiar with it), but I'm not convinced it is familiar enough. I also suspect it is a little colloquial. (PS - Apologies for the unsigned comment!) Valiantis 13:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, colloquial and inobvious, as with most demonym forms for city names. Postdlf 18:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. David Kernow 03:50, 2 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.

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/delete (empty). Conscious 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Category is empty and unused; distinction not a useful one between this and Category:Airports in Ontario (what constitutes "historical"?). At very least naming conventions dictate that it should be renamed to Historical airports in Ontario, but I think it would be better to just delete. BoojiBoy 22:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Just discovered it's a duplicate of Category:Historical airports in Ontario. Can this be speedied? BoojiBoy 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Former buildings and structures categories don't create category clutter as articles just move from one single category into another single category. CalJW 19:25, 1 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.

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:Star Wars fandom. Conscious 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only one article. Unlikely to be useful. Lkjhgfdsa 22:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't this be integrated in some way into Category:Star Wars fandom? Is Category:Star Wars fan films a logical subcategory? There's also a corresponding Category:Star Trek fan fiction. Postdlf 02:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with category:Star Wars fandom. Nathcer 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with category:Star Wars fandom as per Nathcer. Honbicot 20:03, 3 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.

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 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category was brought to my attention in the recent CFD debate (in which I voted to keep.) On review, I think the category should be moved to match up with the others in Category:Deaths by cause — ie. Category:Hangings instead of Category:Deaths by rope and Category:Deaths by drowning instead of Category:Deaths by water. I'm aware this nomination is a bit soon after the Deletion vote closure but I figure this is a slightly different process, and I'm likely to forget this if I don't put it up now. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, gentlemen, let's push that anti-guns POV further! :))) Ukrained 11:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm currently inclined to oppose as "by gunshot" doesn't seem to me to be as generic as "by firearm"; anyone else...?  Regards, David Kernow 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any pistol-whippings in Deaths by firearm? There are ways to kill a man with a gun that don't involve firing bullets. </tongue in cheek> BoojiBoy 22:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One's gun could misfire? Pistol-whipping as noted, or maybe a firearm falling from great height on one's head. :-) Carlossuarez46 04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current title, if only to avoid the creation of a Category:Deaths by pistol-whipping. — May. 31, '06 [05:43] <freak|talk>
• Delete all Deaths by ... categories as unencyclopedic. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't intend to insult anybody, but how many people here are over 15 :))? Should I deliver lectures on logic and science, or somebody needs finishing school instead? Please regard my intentions properly: this is not a UA-related issue, I don't seek an edit war. But we shouldn't overload WP with stupid hyperpopulated cats and encourage newcomers to maintain them. Otherwise Jimbo Wales may run out of his money and shut the whole project out. Best wishes, Ukrained 11:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this debate isn't whether or not to delete the category outright (that was just debated with a firm decision to keep), but rather on whether or not to rename it for semantic issues. I'd also like to point you towards Assume good faith and Wikipedia is not paper. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per rationale above. David Kernow 14:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rationale above. Unless firm evidence is presented that Jimbo Wales will suffer some kind of gunshot-related fatal accident due to a butterfly effect knock-on from my vote, and hence have to be categorized in this category, making it genuinely hyperpopulated, which will make the whole mourning Wikipedia run out of money, and then shut down... TheGrappler 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rationale above. Carlossuarez46 04:28, 4 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.

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 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move acronym to full title Paul 19:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Would "technology" need to be "Technology"...?  Unsure, David Kernow 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe so. Suggest rename per David Kernow. TheGrappler 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Kernow --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (don't capitalize "technology"). Lbbzman 19:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Technology," whether of the "information" sort or otherwise, is a common noun Paul 04:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to rename per nom: this is convention folowed by Category:Information technology. TheGrappler 14:22, 2 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.

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. Conscious 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only includes Category:Ice hockey statistics which is listed under Category:Ice hockey. Vegaswikian 19:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or create sister subCategory:Field hockey statistics (or the like). David Kernow 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary. BoojiBoy 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hockey is a sport played on grass (or similar) (called "field hockey" in certain dialects). The sport adapted from hockey to be played on ice is ice hockey (regardless of usage in North America) and is governed by the International Ice Hockey Federation. Valiantis 13:56, 31 May 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.

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 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - A "fictional work" would be a Story within a story; but obviously this category is meant for works of fiction (not fictional works) about ancient Egypt. MakeRocketGoNow 17:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename. Well-reasoned nom + shorter name = a winning idea, I hope! TheGrappler 22:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming the category to "Fiction about ancient Egypt." logologist|Talk 00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 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.

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 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only member of Category:American musicians by state not using the state name without the possesive. Vegaswikian 17:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Postdlf 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – not all adjectivals are awkward; if an "adjective + noun" format to be used for a category name, I'd say the adjective should be adjectival rather than nominal. Per comments in "Georgia categories" discussion below, however, I recognise that some adjectivals are tricky; "Hawaiian", though, is not one of them. Suggest other "State name musicians" categories where State name has straightforward adjectival renamed to "State adjectival musicians"; similarly, all "adjective + noun" category names currently instantiated as "noun + noun" (again, where adjectivals are straightforward) or switch to "Xs of Y" format.

Abstain per NB here (although currently unsourced). Regards, David Kernow 21:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC), amended 07:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, unless we can have Category:Michigander musicians! --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hawaiian is fine, ditto Californian, Texan etc. Sumahoy 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to provide consistency. - EurekaLott 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom Mayumashu 04:21, 3 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.

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 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat of a re-nomination from November 4 that did not reach a consensus. This category name is currently ambiguous, and is proposed for renaming so that its naming convention matches Category:Multinational companies, and Category:Multinational companies headquartered in Hong Kong. Kurieeto 17:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'm happy to run with this; though I do wonder if "multinational company" is sufficiently well-defined? TheGrappler 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming, but would have no objections to deletion as this is vague and many of even most major companies are multinational nowadays (depending on how you define major of course). CalJW 19:27, 1 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.

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 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested new name would match the extant category:Railway stations serving airports in the United Kingdom. While the "in the United Kingdom" might seem unnecessary as category is already a sub-cat of category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom I'm sure there are railway stations that serve ports and harbours in other parts of the world. Thryduulf 15:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 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.

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 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for renaming to match the naming convention of Category:Gardens in the United States, as well as the naming convention of all Category:Botanical gardens in the United States sub-cats, including Category:Botanical gardens in Florida. Kurieeto 15:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 21:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. TheGrappler 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:40, 31 May 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.

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 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to rename:

• Category:New York City disasters to Category:Disasters in New York City
• Category:New York City transportation accidents to Category:Transportation accidents in New York City
• Category:West Virginia disasters to Category:Disasters in West Virginia

To conform to the naming convention of "Category:Disasters in the United States" and its sub-cats like Category:Transportation disasters in the United States. Kurieeto 15:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. youngamerican (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 21:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:37, 31 May 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.

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 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:British cavalry regiments to Category:British Army cavalry regiments
• Category:British infantry regiments to Category:British Army infantry regiments

In hindsight, I believe the organisation (i.e. British Army) should be specified to conform with Category:British Army regiments, Category:British Army battalions, etc.. SoLando (Talk) 15:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 21:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:40, 31 May 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.

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 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Practice on Wiki is to differentiate field hockey from ice hockey. Most field hockey articles and categories include the "field" disambiguation, see Category:Field hockey clubs, Category:Field hockey coaches, Category:Field hockey by country, Category:Field hockey competitions, Category:Field hockey players, Category:Field hockey venues, and Category:Women's field hockey. In addition, the "Summer Olympics" qualifier does not adequately disambiguate, as ice hockey was played at the 1920 Summer Olympics as well. Articles within the category will have to be moved too. BoojiBoy 13:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This issue was previously debated (see here) and there was no consensus to rename. The Olympic movement calls the sport Hockey and its international governing body is the International Hockey Federation. The term "field hockey" is a usage restricted to a minority of the English-speaking world. Valiantis 14:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So is "soccer", but wiki articles are disambiguated between football (soccer) and American football, plus the other types. BoojiBoy 14:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per well-reasoned nom. youngamerican (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I find the nomination convincing. Clarity may need to prevail over the official name. }TheGrappler 22:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless all the articles in the category are also renamed. -- Usgnus 18:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That was part of the nomination. BoojiBoy 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral -- Usgnus 21:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Honbicot 20:02, 3 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.

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. Conscious 13:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bring this for general discussion. There are now hundreds of categories going right down to specific years back 2000 years. An example is:-

• Category:Educational institutions established in the 19th century with decade sub-categories such as:-
• Category:Educational institutions established in the 1890s with 10 year sub-categories such as:-
• Category:Educational institutions established in 1891

As an example, the University of Oxford is the only entry in Category:Educational institutions established in 1167, the categories for other years in the 1160s are redlinks and in categories for decades in the 12th century, five are redlinks. There is even Category:Educational institutions established in 2009 and for other years in the future.

I do not think this has ever been discussed and the present situation is crazy. What is even the point of categorising educational institutions by year of foundation. It is hardly a major thing in common for them. What to do? I have no idea, except perhaps delete individual year categories back to say 1600 and delete decade catgories as well before that. A lot of work for a bot. --Bduke 00:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be in favour of listifying by decade, with each list arranged by year. That will give all the information currently dealt with by 20 cats with 200 subcats with 2000 sub-subcats by way of 200 articles. A template could be made linking with other decades in the century, too, which would make navigation just as easy, if not easier. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is fine as it is. The year subcategories allow the educational institution categories to be placed in the general by year categories, and many will become very well populated over time. CalJW 00:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Category clutter is not a problem in this field, and there isn't the slightest chance that lists would be as well populated as categories in the long run. Bhoeble 13:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The same level of subcategorisation should be applied across the whole of any given subject area. Sumahoy 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please put this nomination on hold: I (and a couple of other editors) had already spotted this problem; an attempt to come to a proposal on what level of granularity is needed is taking place (slowly) at Category talk:Educational institutions by year of establishment. Once consensus is reached on what level of granularity we want (e.g. decades for some periods, years for another, centuries maybe for earlier times) then particular subcategories without consensus for keeping can be batch nominated for deleted. Since not all the categories covered by this nomination have actually been tagged as such it's technically an improper nomination anyway (though of course I don't hold this against the user concerned, since it wasn't obvious where to look! :-)) On a serious note, we need some kind of policy on "granularity across time" - we had a similar problem with "xxxx in law" not so long ago, for instance. TheGrappler 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the information above, I withdraw this nomination. You are of course correct that my nomination was technically improper, but how do you put tags on 2000 categories without a bot? That is part of the problem. --Bduke 01:05, 2 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.

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 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarrely named; so at the very least rename. However, it isn't clear that it adds encyclopedic value, so I would rather delete. For instance, it would be silly to use this category for a school for which at least the decade of establishment is known and categorized by; neither do all the articles grouped in this category have anything especially interesting or useful in common. TheGrappler 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Each of those institutions was obviously established in some year, and Wiki should not categorize research laziness. BoojiBoy 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Educational institutions established in an unknown year. Compare with Category:Year of birth missing. It might not be research laziness - perhaps the year is unknown to everybody? I agree that a rename is needed, and the suggested name seems fine. We might want to split it into 'missing' (from WP) and 'unknown' (in general) at some point, but that can wait until the category is larger. P.S. I added a bullet point above. SeventyThree^(Talk) 13:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Either rename per nom or delete. Delete/listify. David Kernow 14:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC), amended 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, embarassing category. If listified, do it somewhere outside article space. — May. 31, '06 [05:45] <freak|talk>
• Rename to Category:Educational institutions established in an unknown year. Yeah, the "xxxx" isn't very scholarly, but it was a simple way of cutting and pasting when I was moving the various institutions around in cleaning up all the "established in" categories. It does make for a simple place to find the articles that need a bit more fleshing out in regards to their establishment date. j-beda 18:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, so long as this category is a temporary placeholder that will encourage addition of such info Paul 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per SeventyThree. -- Usgnus 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Personally, I'd rather it be to something like Category:Educational institutions with unknown year of establishment or Category:Educational institutions with year of establishment missing, to keep it more consistent with other categories like Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Category needed. But anything's better than the current name.  ;) --Elonka 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-information of this kind adds nothing. It will almost aways be clear which decade or century, so those categories can be used. Debate seems to be moving towards removing all year categories for educational institutes founded before 1500 or 1600 and it is likley to be these old ones where the exact year of foundation is not known. --Bduke 23:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "missing" distinction does make it easier to find ones to update, as per Category:Year of birth missing or any of the "stubs" categories. Statements about lack of reliable information can also be of use too, giving the "unknown" category some non-zero value as well. "Some time in the 1230s but no one knows when" is different from "1234". j-beda 01:06, 3 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.

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 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:Cuban people. TheGrappler 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete. David Kernow 14:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per above- the cat is obviously redundant and it is not clear what is the difference between "personalities"and "people"(after all for somebody to be in wikipedia he has to be notable anyway).--Greece666 18:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. ReeseM 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, or rename to Category:Cuban famously notable celebrity personalities. Postdlf 04:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Honbicot 20:02, 3 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.

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 initial nom. Conscious 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was nominated for speedy rename to Category:Lists of fictional events, but seems redundant to numerous existing categories in Category:Fictional events. BD2412 T 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Lady Aleena 19:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose This is primarily a Lists category under Category:Entertainment lists. If this category is redundant then all categories under Category:Lists are redundant. --JeffW 22:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I think if you're going to move it from speedy direct to cfd that you need to change the tag on the category. --JeffW 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite right - done. Also, some articles in the category are a poor fit. List of alternate history United States Presidents is not a list of events, but rather a list of people described in fiction as holding positions they did not hold; Category:Fictional timelines seems the wrong way round to me, as events occur in the context of timelines (granted a timeline could be characterized as a "list of events"). BD2412 T 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Currently Category:Timelines is a subcategory of Category:Lists by form because, as you noted, a timeline is a form of list with dates and events. And your right that List of alternate history United States Presidents is in the wrong place, it should go somewhere under Category:Lists of people. I just moved List of fictional revolutions and coups from Category:Lists of fictional things since it is about events and not things. --JeffW 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the question of whether a real person in an alternate timeline is still a real person is a subtle one. I'd say that in the alternate timeline context that he is a fictional person and belongs in the fictional character category. Therefore I've now moved List of alternate history United States Presidents to Category:Lists of fictional characters. --JeffW 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I could be wrong. Have been before! ;-) BD2412 T 23:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename Category:Lists of fictional events as per JeffW's arguments (though he has voted "oppose" rather than "rename"). Valiantis 14:05, 30 May 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.

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. Conscious 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague and unnecessary. The text it contains should be in an article, not in a category. This article could then be categorized properly. Unfortunately, the list of proverbs only refers to wikiquote, in which no explanation is given about the meaning and origin of the proverb (which is very encyclopedic information imho). Errabee 10:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 10:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 00:42, 6 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.

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 all. Conscious 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:History of Georgia to Category:History of Georgia (country)
• Category:Geography of Georgia to Category:Geography of Georgia (country)
• Category:Football venues in Georgia to Category:Football venues in Georgia (country)
• Category:Cathedrals in Georgia to Category:Cathedrals in Georgia (country)
• Category:Churches in Georgia to Category:Churches in Georgia (country)
• Category:Monasteries in Georgia to Category:Monasteries in Georgia (country)
• Category:Places of worship in Georgia to Category:Places of worship in Georgia (country)
• Category:Georgia musicians to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) musicians
• Category:Georgia politicians to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) politicians
• Category:Georgia writers to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) writers

Clarifying the names of a few categories. - EurekaLott 06:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom except:

Category:Georgia musicians to Category:Georgian (U.S. state) musicians

Category:Georgia politicians to Category:Georgian (U.S. state) politicians

Category:Georgia writers to Category:Georgian (U.S. state) writers

i.e. use adjective not noun in the U.S. state categories. Regards, David Kernow 10:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The noun is used for all of the siblings in Category:American writers by state, etc. ×Meegs 12:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost all... Okay, so I need to propose a "rename all subcategories of Category:American writers by state to use adjectivals rather than nouns as adjectives"...?  Regards, David 14:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't. Not all states have widely used or established adjectival forms. I think it's most common simply to use the noun form as an adjective, and it certainly doesn't sound incorrect to do so. "Michael Stipe is a Georgian musician" sounds fine. But would you really rather have "Stephen King is a Mainer writer" than "Stephen King is a Maine writer"? Using the adjectival form would then make it necessary to disambiguate "New Yorker" (do we really want "New Yorker (state) writers" and "New Yorker (city) writers"?) Changing the standard for state subcategories will just create a lot of unnecessary work without any benefit. Postdlf 14:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I'd say "Stephen King is a writer from Maine" and "Writers from/of/in New York (City)", with a decision to be made over which conjunction to use. The latter could be used as a general template ("X from/of/in Placename"). I recognise, however, that adjectivals can be tricky. Thanks for your input, David 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The noun form is definitely preferable over the adjective form. This is quite consistent across most categories, actually. The reason is that adjective forms are highly variable and many of our readers won't know them. For instance, what is the adjective form of Rhode Island? Does it even have a standardized adjective form? I certainly don't know it, and I bet most people don't know it ... so how would they find the category? Wouldn't it just be easier to type in "Category:Rhode Island musicians" than have to go look up the adjective forms? --Cyde↔Weys 19:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom without exception. Postdlf 14:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom without exception. LeRoi 17:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom without exception --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would think "Politicans from/of/in [State]" would be better, for those categories. "New Mexican politicians" would be at the very least, confusing. Rename all for clarity, but avoid demonyms in category names. — May. 31, '06 [05:53] <freak|talk>
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 00:43, 6 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.

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:Golden Age superheroes. Conscious 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague, unencyclopedic, and unnecessary. How superhero fiction was affected by and depicted World War II is an interesting and worthwhile topic for an article to tackle, but it makes for a poor category. This is a relationship to describe, not a clear and simple classification. This category instead conflates "Superheroes published during World War II," which may not mean that the characters' stories actually referred to or involved them in the conflict, with "Superheroes depicted as involved in World War II," which may not mean that the characters were actually published during that time (e.g., the The Invaders). Adding to the confusion are characters published during World War II who weren't actually published in war-related stories until decades after the end of the war. Then there are the characters whose war-related stories defined them, versus those who may have had no more than an issue or two in which they fought a Nazi. This does not make for a very useful category. Postdlf 05:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, or at least rename to emphasize fictional context. David Kernow 10:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Golden Age superheroes and prune. The Golden Age of Comic Books is roughly coterminous with World War II (1938-1949 or so), so the category can be renamed to mean just those superheroes published in that period. (And nearly all of them fought Nazis or German spies.)--Mike Selinker 13:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. The category has 37 pages, but as it stands it is non-meaningful; if however it is moved to Golden Age of Comic Books or maybe superheroes created during the goleden age of comic books will be a meaningful category since it will refer to a chronological and artistic period of comic books.
• Categorizing superheroes by when they were created is useful and appropriate for a category, but this one isn't a very good starting point. I'll drop a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics so a structure can be figured out, and for now I'd urge everyone to simply vote "delete" here so we can have a clear consensus to get rid of this one that will have no prejudice against a sensible characters-by-date-of-creation system. Postdlf 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't suggesting a date-of-creation system. If you get into Modern Age superheroes, you will have an unwieldy category. But Golden Age seems compact enough to work for now. If a new system comes along, this can be modified later.--Mike Selinker 14:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense. I'll endorse your rename as a good transition step at the very least. Postdlf Postdlf 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If felt necessary create properly named category. Pavel Vozenilek 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 20:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mike Selinker GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:21, 4 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.

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). Conscious 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper name of the band is KISS, I have already created KISS singles and moved all applicable articles. cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 10:50, 30 May 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.

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 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is about the family of the recent Prime Minister of Thailand, but it doesn't match most other non-royal family categories. Sumahoy 01:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as nominator. Sumahoy 01:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:56, 30 May 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.

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. Conscious 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This subcat of Category:Anti-heroes [2] was overlooked during the deletion of the metacategory. All the same reasons apply for it's deletion. CovenantD 00:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Anti-hero is a valid literary concept to discuss, not a clear definition to apply. Good article, bad category. Postdlf 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, postdlf sums it up nicely. — May. 31, '06 [05:56] <freak|talk>
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 20:03, 3 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.