Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 25

< December 24 December 26 >

December 25

Category:James Randi

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Randi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. The few articles that remain after recategorizing his books and person by project articles don't warrant a category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Idaho Law

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Idaho Law to Category:Idaho law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistent with other states in Category:State law in the United States. —Markles 22:46, 25 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Neoconservative political parties in the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neoconservative political parties in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unhelpful category, based on undefined, non-relevant, perhaps non-existent distinction. Category is now empty. previously, only article in category was article on US Republican Party, only subcategory in category was US Republican Party category. Republican party contains many kinds of conservative members and beliefs. Describing the whole party this way seems to be an overly political act. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mini-Bots

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Transformers Mini Vehicles. Kbdank71 16:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mini-Bots to Category:Mini Vehicles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was created under the false assumption that "Mini-Bots" is an official Transformers term. It is not, though it is a very popular fanterm. The correct term is either Minicars or Mini Vehicles. http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Mini_Vehicle ItsWalky! (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works. --ItsWalky! (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ceiling fans

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ceiling fans to Category:Images of ceiling fans
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To follow form of other like categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:With trademark

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:With trademark to Category:Images with trademarks
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Image cat without the word image. Current name is ambiguous. There may be something better but I could not think of a better name so it you have one, fell free to suggest it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Intrastate WB Templates

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, empty. Kbdank71 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intrastate WB Templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The WB network has been defunct since 2006. This category of templates is no longer needed once templates are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaidService (talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Intrastate UPN Templates

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, empty. Kbdank71 16:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intrastate UPN Templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The UPN network has been defunct since 2006. This category of templates is no longer needed once templates are deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaidService (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:El Tarf Province

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:El Tarf Province to Category:El Taref Province
Nominator's rationale: It is the official name, as well as that used by the French Wikipedia, and it returns more Google hits: [1] [2] escondites 13:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems reasonable to be consistent with what editors who are familar with the subject matter would expect (unlike myself). JERRY talk contribs 14:57, 25 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suicides by Asian-Americans

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suicides by Asian-Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: {{{3|This category is not only biased but also falsely accusing listed people of psychos. I believe the category is Engrish as well. The comment on the category page shows what the editor, Dnivera intended. --Appletrees (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Asian-American community is faced with a mental health crisis. Many cultural and mental health issues still need to be examined as contributing to suicides by Asian-Americans.[3]
It's probably a notable intersection despite the bald statements below (a quick google search of "Asian-Americans"+suicide brings 79,000 hits including CNN & the Centers for Disease Control among the first few) - were this a "positive" view of Asian-Americans no doubt most of the delete votes would find significant enough intersection to keep it, but WP:WEDONTLIKEIT is winning out demonstrating once again my theory that race categories at WP are fundamentally flawed because they will never adhere to NPOV because the community will bend over backwards to keep positive ones and bend the other way to delete negative ones regardless of whether any notable intersection actually exists as demonstrated here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so the deletion reviewers cannot whine that nothing was provided by way of sources, here goes:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Central School of Speech and Drama

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was relisted on dec 31. Kbdank71 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central School of Speech and Drama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This seems a convoluted mess of recursive intermixing and general overcategorization. Some of the cats will only ever have one other of these categories in them.JERRY talk contribs 05:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong oppose First off Webber Douglas only merged into the Central School in the last couple of years and putting people who were there previously into the CSSD category is anachronistice. Secondly the alumni categories especially contain a large number of entries, whilst the other categories are the standard structure for UK universities (of which the CSSD is a part, being a college of the University of London). The category structure for uni people is stable and consistent, particularly for the University of London which has the people separated out and sub-categorised accordingly, and randomly deleting individual sections severely damages its overall efficiency. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that the category structure is consistent. The webbers get into the centrals high up the tree, and then themselves exist aside the similar ones at the bottom. It's a ball of yarn that a cat played with currently. If kept, the structure needs to be standardized per all UK univs, IMHO. JERRY talk contribs 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually this set-up is pretty standard for UK universities that have either merged or absorbed - see for example Category:Queen Mary, University of London which has a similar set-up handling Westfield College, Barts and The London so that all alumni of the current institution and predecessors are either in the QMUL alumni category or the relevant sub category etc... The structure isn't overtly complicated - it just reflects the standard People subcategory with academics and alumni a further sub-category and former institutions linked in at the appropriate place. Or to put it another way, how would dumping into an unstandardised single institution category be an improvement, especially with the large number of alumni for both CSSD and Webber? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Bloomington

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Bloomington to Category:People from Bloomington, Indiana
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not only is there more than one "Bloomington" in the U.S., there's more than one "People from Bloomington" category... see Category:People from Bloomington, Illinois. This is one that NEEDS to be dabbed with the state, IMHO. Dale Arnett (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.