Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< February 9 February 11 >

February 10

Category:Lasallian Colleges and Universities to Category:Lasallian universities and colleges

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. - TexasAndroid 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to adopt the standard "universities and colleges" formulation as well as standard capitalization. choster 22:50, 10 February 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:Branded foods to Category:Brand name food products

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. - TexasAndroid 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested new category name is clearer, and closely matches its associated stub category, Category:Brand name food products stubs. Kurieeto 21:10, 10 February 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.

Democratic Party renames

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. - TexasAndroid 16:16, 17 February 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:Mark Isham

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. - TexasAndroid 15:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, with no obvious use (except vanity?), and one sub-category with only one member. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 10 February 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:Mark Isham albums

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. - TexasAndroid 15:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one member; little obvious point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 10 February 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:Vichy France

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. - TexasAndroid 16:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated by Category:Vichy regime. Dahn 15:34, 10 February 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:Airports in Prince Edward Island to Category:Airports on Prince Edward Island

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. - TexasAndroid 15:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably could get away with Speedy Rename, but wanted to be cautious. Anywho the rename makes more grammatical sense —akghetto talk 11:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for consistancy CG janitor 12:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. Libertarian Party presidential nominees to Category:Libertarian Party (United States) presidential nominees

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. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To lose abbreviation and match what appears to be the consensus from similar nominations. Vegaswikian 07:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. BD2412 T 18:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. Libertarian Party vice presidential nominees to Category:Libertarian Party (United States) vice presidential nominees

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. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To lose abbreviation and match what appears to be the consensus from similar nominations. I did notice that the parent cateory is vice-presidential, don't know which form is preferred. Vegaswikian 07:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. BD2412 T 18:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. Democratic Party to Category:Democratic Party (United States)

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. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To lose abbreviation and match name of main article. Vegaswikian 07:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:U.S. Republican Party to Category:Republican Party (United States)

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. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To lose abbreviation and match name of main article. Vegaswikian 07:38, 10 February 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.

Canadians by ethnic and/or national origins

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. - TexasAndroid 16:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all hyphened names of sub-categories that fall under the above heading have been tagged to be changed to grammatically correct names w/o the hyphen. (most of these cat pages i erroneously created by the way)


the closeness in recent voting on whether to hyphenate Category:Vietnamese Americans (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 1 #Category:Vietnamese Americans) suggests a lot of users (including myself before) have not thought this grammar bit through. the hyphen is only used properly to split up two adjectives while showing that the order between the two is signicant. the order is set - a "compound adjective" is formed to distinguish say Armenian-Canadian people (Canadian people of Armenian origins) from Canadian-Armenian people, Armenian people of Canadian origins. as used in the list above though, there is only one adjective describing one noun and therefore no compound adjective exists and no hythen is used - the grammatical truth of this matter is cut and dry Mayumashu 05:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and American ones two - will put them up later unless someone beats me to it Mayumashu 03:13, 14 February 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:Austroasiatic languages

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 by DragonflySixtyseven on feb 10. Syrthiss 16:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austroasiatic should be renamed "Austro-Asiatic." This word is similar to Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Anglo-Saxon, Sino-Tibetan, and many others. The American Heritage Dictionary says it is spelled with the hyphen and there is an article on Wikipedia named Austro-Asiatic. Does anyone oppose? Tim Q. Wells 04:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:Austro-Asiatic]] and the one called [[Category:Austroasiatic]] is almost empty anyway.Tim Q. Wells 15:44, 10 February 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:Neighborhoods of Karachi

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 by submittor. - TexasAndroid 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this category contains 190 stubs which are all copy and paste jobs from a single original stub. None of the stubs give any substantial information beyond which Karachi town they are located in. The 191st stub (Gulistan-e-Jauhar) was the same as the others but now contains a series of lists of places in the neighborhood including two petrol stations and a telephone exchange. All of the information on the 190 stubs would be better placed as a list in their respective town articles (which are mostly stubs in themselves). Green Giant 03:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. - That the stubs should be wrapped up into a list is a different debate. As long as the 190 or so stubs exist, though, IMHO this category is useful for keeping them collected. This CFD is very unlikely to spur the merging of the stubs. So I oppose this for now, but if/when the stubs are gone, I woudl gladly support this. - TexasAndroid 14:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Karachi is a huge city but it will take time for the articles to develop as it is in a poor country. Merchbow 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comemnt Considering the points made above, I have been hasty in nominating, so I am withdrawing the nominaton for the category to give it time to expand. Green Giant 01:25, 14 February 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:Confederate spies to Category:American Civil War spies

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. - TexasAndroid 16:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant category. All of the people listed as Confederate spies are also listed as American Civil War spies. Alternatively you could delete the American Civil War spies category and create a new category for Union spies, but right now there are so few entries for Civil War spying in general that I think it makes more sense to label them all as American Civil War spies rather than have separate Union and Confederate categories which would each have very few entries. Thatcher131 02:18, 10 February 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 Years

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 delete - --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what's going on here. It appears to be a random selection of years. - EurekaLott 00:18, 10 February 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_February_10&oldid=1132030450"