Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 5

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 18:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:c. Nippon Pro Baseball also redirects to Japanese baseball. DMG413 20:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, and also delete Category:Nippon Pro Baseball, the parent of the above category, which only contains the above category and nothing else. Neier 23:51, 11 March 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 no consensous. -- TexasAndroid 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has only one entry, Category:Nova Scotia sports teams, which should be merged with Category:Nova Scotia sports to follow all other Canadian province sports categories. Similar to the Municipal sports teams debate, which resulted in speedy deletion.--Mike Selinker 20:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It seems very reasonable to me to separate out the teams. By location categorisation is one of the two desirable subcategorisation schemes within Category:Canadian sports teams alongside by sport categorisation. If the other provinces haven't been done yet, that is one up to Nova Scotia. Calsicol 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, not one other Canadian province or US state has this separation.--Mike Selinker 02:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support *Oppose deletion nom, suggest renaming to Category:Sports teams by Canadian province or territory, and label the page with a request to populate Mayumashu 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC) with the creation of the new intermediate cat page by the User:Bhoeble Mayumashu 14:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created that as an intermediate category. Bhoeble 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Category:Sport in Canada by province or territory already exists, and should be quite sufficient. - EurekaLott 05:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepIt is reasonable to categorise by teams, as a partner cat to Canadian sportspeople, which contains biographies of individuals. There is immense room for expansion, with subcats by both province and sport.--Mais oui! 08:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we deleted the first category of each type for lack of precedent we would have no categories at all. Bhoeble 14:56, 6 March 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. -- TexasAndroid 18:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly original research, created by creator of only article in this category. Molerat 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Postdlf 15:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, category created for nonnotable and/or hoax band by the same author who brought us Category:American musical groups of the sixteenth century (which I just speedied as patent nonsense). Angr/talk 16:34, 7 March 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 as nominated. Syrthiss 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few, if any, of the people in these categories are notable for lecturing - I think most are known for other academic work, i.e. research, writing, etc, and I suspect some of them have never done any lecturing. Including subcategories:

• Category:Lecturers of the University of Kent → Category:Academics of the University of Kent
• Category:Lecturers of the University of London → Category:Academics of the University of London (and its 20 subcategories in the same manner)
• Category:Lecturers of the University of Nottingham → Category:Academics of the University of Nottingham (note Category:Academics associated with the University of Nottingham, suggest merge with it)
• Category:Lecturers of Queen's University, Belfast → Category:Academics of Queen's University, Belfast

Vclaw 18:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lecturer is a formal title, roughly equivalent to "assistant professor with tenue". So "having done lecturing" is irrelevant. However, one should not list professors or readers (associate professors) as being lecturers. So either the professors and readers should have their own lists, or else a rename is necessary. Faculty might be more specific than Academics. JeffBurdges 19:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, Faculty is a US term for university teaching and research staff. This is a UK page. The Faculty in a UK university is an administrative grouping of Departments headed by a Dean, e.g. the Faculty of Science. "Academics" is the correct term. As to the proposal, I agree. --Bduke 23:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes, so I now agree with the proposed rename, but for my reasons stated bove, not for the noms reasons. JeffBurdges 10:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All professor/lecturer/other academic title categories should be renamed to "academics". Gradings in the job hierarchy aren't important, and they are so inconsistent around the world that they can only cause confusion. Calsicol 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support i created these pages recently and used "lecturers" as what i took to be the British equivalent of "faculty", which it is clearly not, and there s no point to have the scope of these pages restricted to a particular job title but not others when it s for their research as said above that the bios of academics are encyclopedic Mayumashu 03:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the use of "Academics" over "Lecturers" - it's the more appropriate term. However, I feel that "associated with", as per the current Nottingham Cat is a useful modifier, so I would support including that in all of the categories.Jamse 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : Does anyone else feel the construct Category:Academics of the University of X or Category:Academics of X University somewhat strained?  How about Category:University of X academic staff or Category:X University academic staff...?  Regards, David Kernow 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The reason I prefer the forumlation used for Nottingham ("associated with") is that it seems a little more time-neutral than the other proposals. They sound to me like they only refer to current academic staff. Jamse 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles exist to populate them, perhaps both Category:X academic staff and Category:Former X academic staff are needed...?  Thanks for your input, David Kernow 16:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My prefered solution would be Category:Academic Staff of the University of X or Category:Academic Staff of X University Bluap 12:44, 12 March 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. -- TexasAndroid 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We recently deleted[1] it at wikinews as being "inherently POV" due to state terrorism generally not being included in normal usage, various acts by non-violent groups often being described as terrorism by significant segments of the American population, etc. However, this deletion has remained contentious and I see no reason why wikipedia and wikinews should differ with respect to inclusion of this category. So I'd like to poll the wikipedia community on this matter. I argued for, but did not vote for, the deletion on wikinews. And I am unconvinced either way at present. I will not vote here. JeffBurdges 18:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mirror Vax 18:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A broad, inclusive, useful category.--Mike Selinker 20:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this category is established and highly populated. It should only contain uncontroversial incidents of terrorism, which would exclude most actions taken by a state. But that's no reason to delete the category. Rhobite 15:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per comments above. David Kernow 16:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's obviously well-populated and useful.pat8722 04:05, 9 March 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. -- TexasAndroid 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can produce non-biased scientific evidence that being a lesbian helps a woman to win a sport, every addition to this category serves only to promote lesbianism and is therefore a breach of the neutrality rules. Therefore the category should be empty, so it follows that it should be deleted. Votes from LGBT activists will probably pour in, but they should only be counted in proportion to the number of LGBT's in society, or the result will be biased. Golfcam 17:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep I don't see any propotion going on here, but you could possibly rename to "Homosexual sportspeople", and include homosexual male athletes. Its not supposed to be a vote in the first place, but we definitely don't apply special voting rules under any circumstances. JeffBurdges 18:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I'm not a LGBT activist, I'm a sports fan. And I think it's very reasonable to have this category.--Mike Selinker 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not a LGBT activist and don't even know what that word means. "Information" is neutral, and does not of itself "promote" anything. The intersection of sportspeople and Lesbianism is a legitimate topic of interest/research. To propose to delete information because it "may" be used in a way "you don't like" is what should not be happening in Wiki, and would be unconscionable censorship by the few over the many. pat8722 22:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allegations of censorship against people who want to resist the intrusion of sex into every corner of life are one of the tiredest tricks in the liberal armoury. Calsicol 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And allegations that even the slightest allusion to the mere existence of homosexuality constitutes some kind of "promotion" are one of the tiredest and most pathetic tricks in the conservative armoury. Bearcat 06:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedians motives are irrelevant. Everyone has their own personal motivations for contributing to this project. What matters is argument, not motivation. When Martina Navrátilová came out as a lesbian it was big news. She lost millions in advertising revenue because of this. There is a section of her article that talks about this. It is reasonable to file all articles in categories of articles that discuss the same subject. This can be verified by looking at the articles. Having this category does not mean that "being a lesbian helps a woman to win a sport", nor does it promote anything. Removing this category would be a breach of neutrality rules. -- Samuel Wantman 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one article. Should we have a category for everything that is important for one person in another category? Calsicol 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• That's some interesting logic. Keep. I am an LGBT activist, and am voting for the same reasons as the people above: Being a lesbian in sports is currently a notable intersection. However, the category should only be used when there is mention of the sportsperson's being a lesbian in their article. -Seth Mahoney 00:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. By the logic of the proposal, a category Category:Heterosexual sportspeople would promote heterosexuality. Are you trying to extirpate lesbians by deleting encyclopaedia categories? Haiduc 01:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User:Haiduc is quite right about Category:Heterosexual sportspeople, but guess what, it doesn't exist, so we don't need to delete it. This category reflects the fashion to make as much of this issue as possible; it reveals contemporary biases as surely as Category:Uppity niggers would have revealed the biases behind an ante-Bellum Southern Wikipedia. Calsicol 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My first thought was to use an example having to do with race, but I though it might not be in the best of taste. Having been proven right by this last vote, I would like to suggest that a better analogy would be the claim that a category named Category:Afro-American sportsmen would promote blackness. Haiduc 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to be fair, contemporary biases are what make people want to look things up on Wikipedia.--Mike Selinker 02:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Haiduc, someone's already beaten you to it... the category you mentioned exists at Category:African American sportspeople. — Dale Arnett 04:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The intersection between sexuality and athletics is obvious; entire books have been written, for example, about the culture of homophobia in many sports. Entire books have been written about the fact that women who excel in sports still face assumptions and innuendo about their sexuality; in fact, there's an active court case in the United States as we speak, involving a straight woman who was harassed off her university basketball team because she wasn't conforming to a more conventionally heterosexual appearance and image [2]. And in a culture where athletes make a lot of their income from commercial endorsements, there are still a lot of questions about whether an openly LGBT athlete has similar opportunities or not. There are books about this stuff. There are documentary films about this stuff. People have done doctoral theses on LGBTs in sports. And then there's the matter of the Gay Games and the World Outgames. So I genuinely fail to see how anybody can say that there isn't a clear and documentable relationship between athletics and sexuality. I have to call this a keep. Bearcat 07:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. People are interested in the intersection of these groups (right or wrong), its criteria is objective (presumably these athletes have all describe themselves as homosexual), and the membership is reasonably-sized to make the category useful. I don't understand the promotion claim. ×Meegs 15:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As things stand now, sexuality and athletics intersect enough that having categories for LGBT athletes are worth keeping. — Dale Arnett 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This argument has gotten so dull... Cleduc 18:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the nomination is bad faith; not convinced? substitute "African American" for "LGBT" and see how comfortable you are supporting the nominator's statement about how votes should be counted. Carlossuarez46 03:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems that there is interest in the topic. The topic merits discussion for several reasons already discussed. The rules should be: no gossip, conjecture, "outing" or judgementalism. Explore the issues! Adam Holland 00:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Statements of verifiable fact are not advocacy. Septentrionalis 22:07, 10 March 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. -- TexasAndroid 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Napoleonic wars ought to have "wars" capitalized as I believe "Napoleonic War(s)" is a two-word proper noun (see main article Napoleonic Wars). Thereafter a number of its subcategories have less-than-grammatical names. Propose the following:

• Category:Napoleonic wars → Category:Napoleonic Wars

Category:Napoleonic wars British commanders → Category:British commanders of the Napoleonic Wars
(NB capitalization of "Wars" here and hereafter.)

Category:Napoleonic wars British naval commanders → Category:British naval commanders of the Napoleonic Wars

Category:Napoleonic wars French commanders → Category:French commanders of the Napoleonic Wars

Category:Napoleonic wars French naval commanders → Category:French naval commanders of the Napoleonic Wars

Category:Napoleonic wars Polish commanders → Category:Polish commanders of the Napoleonic Wars

Category:Napoleonic wars Russian commanders → Category:Russian commanders of the Napoleonic Wars

• Support as proposer. David Kernow 12:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC) PS I hope I have used {{cfru}} correctly; apologies in advance if not.[reply]
• Rename all per nom. —Kirill Lokshin 17:11, 5 March 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 no consensous. -- TexasAndroid 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Strict count was 3 support, and 2 oppose)

Category:Revolution people and some of its similarly-named subcategories (see below) have less-than-grammatical names. Propose the following:

• Category:Revolution people → Category:People involved in revolutions

Category:American Revolution people → Category:People of the American Revolution

Category:French Revolution figures → Category:People of the French Revolution

Category:Napoleonic wars French commanders : see #Category:Napoleonic wars and subcategories (multiple renaming request) above.

Category:Guillotined French Revolution figures → Category:People of the French Revolution executed by guillotine or maybe Category:Guillotined people of the French Revolution

Category:Russian Revolution people → Category:People of the Russian Revolution

Category:Russian counter-revolution people → Category:People of the Russian counter-revolution
Should "counter-revolution" be capitalized?

• Support as proposer. David Kernow 12:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC). PS I hope I have used {{cfru}} correctly; apologies in advance if not.[reply]
• Oppose. Category:American Revolution people is certainly an ungainly construction, but Category:People of the American Revolution gives an even more misleading perception of who belongs in the category (the category collects people who were opposed to the revolution, as well as those who were in favor of it). The naming here is consistent with Category:World War II people, Category:French and Indian War people, Category:War of 1812 people, Category:American Civil War people, etc. Many other categories would thus need renaming. The existing names are not real too good when it comes to grammar, but they are short and descriptive and perfectly workable. I know the trend is towards longer and longer category names, but file me under Category:Wikipedians who think that short unambiguous category names work just fine. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 05:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, I suppose "People of the X Revolution" doesn't necessarily imply that those people supported the X Revolution, but that they were at least involved in it in some way. As regards the need to rename other categories, I would volunteer to do so. I too favour short, unambiguous category names, but, I suppose, not at the expense of grammar (see subcategory Category:Wikipedians who think that short unambiguous category names work just fine so long as they are grammatical). Thanks for your input, David Kernow 16:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support. This would make the subcats consistent in form. But somehow Category:People of the Industrial Revolution still seems out of place in this cat. Vegaswikian 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Revolution people category should be deleted and its sub-categories merged into Category:People associated with wars (except for that Industrial Revolution category). --JeffW 22:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC) --JeffW 16:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that revolution necessarily implies war, especially in the cases of conceptual and/or sociological revolutions such as the Industrial Revolution. The Russian Revolution, for example, led to a civil war, but my understanding is that the Revolution itself did not use war. Also, more recently, there are those Eastern European "revolutions" of various colours... What do you/others think?  Regards, David Kernow 16:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is any useful purpose served in lumping together the martial type of revolution and the intellectual type of revolution in a category. So, if this category is only for martial revolutions, is there enough of a distinction between revolution and war to maintain two separate categories for those involved? --JeffW 17:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps... I could create (say) Category:Political revolutions and Category:Conceptual revolutions (and make them, for now, the only subcategories of Category:Revolutions) then start populating them, but maybe that might open cans of worms. In the meantime, I realise I'm unable to rename ungrammatical "X people" categories myself, but I would undertake to hunt them down for nomination...?  Regards, David Kernow 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the distinction between the American Revolution and the American Revolutionary War, and in fact, there are already two separate categories for those things. And I also found the severly underpopulated American Revolutionary War Veterans which should go under People associated with wars and I guess I should take American Revolution people out of People associated with wars. Is there somewhere else we can talk about this? --JeffW 16:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this proposal is concerned I'm withdrawing my opposition. I see now that these categories don't belong in the People associated with wars category (or at least more discussion is needed) and the precedent from the other categories mentioned, like War of 1812 people, don't apply. --JeffW 16:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing no better, I'd say this is as good a place as any for a cross-category discussion. The American Revolution and American Revolutionary War is a better – perhaps one of the best – examples of the distinction, a good one to remember for future reference. Meanwhile, "War of 1812 people" strikes me as a name either for something like a cult, or, more tongue-in-cheek, a war involving a certain number of people. On the other hand, "People of the War of 1812" feels cumbersome, so I suppose I would favo(u)r "People involved in the War of 1812". Yours, David 02:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"People of the French Revolution executed by guillotine" is an abominable wording, much worse than what it is proposed to replace. "Guillotined people of the French Revolution" seems to me neither better nor worse than what we have. - Jmabel | Talk 18:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about Category:People guillotined during the French Revolution...? David Kernow 20:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"People of the French Revolution" tends to suggest only people who favored the revolution, rather than all who were involved (including, for example, royalists), so I would tend to oppose. - Jmabel | Talk 18:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise there's no 'right' or 'wrong' about this issue, but I'm nonetheless intrigued to learn that some people view the "People of" formulation as if it were "People (in favor) of". I wonder how the current "French Revolution figures" (or its alternative "French Revolution people") has any less bias...?  Thanks for your thoughts, David Kernow 20:58, 11 March 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. -- TexasAndroid 18:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Placeopedia template is well and good, but I fail to see the value of collecting all its uses in a category. It reads like a random collection of locations. - EurekaLott 08:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally unmaintainable. --Tothebarricades 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unmaintainable metacategory. Bearcat 09:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, delete, delete. Absolute misunderstanding of purpose of the categories. Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If kept would likely grow to include every article about a place. Vegaswikian 19:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Will get far too large. Osomec 16:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the cat appears to be the only function of the template. It one goes, so should the other. Septentrionalis 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is primarily an external link template that has the side effect of adding the page to the nominated category. - EurekaLott 01:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: True it looks unmaintainable, but I was glad to find it as was my first encounter with Placeopedia. Would it be appropriate for locations to include a mention that they are listed in Placeopedia, perhaps with a link to the map if technically possible? Blueminute 14:48, 14 March 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 below. 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 delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a temporary solution to help handle the proliferation of userbox categories. That problem is now under control and everything that used to be in this cat is now in Category:Wikipedians or its sub cats. -- 68.122.225.30 05:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, would you mind signing in and claiming this edit? Thanks. — Mar. 5, '06 [05:28] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

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. -- TexasAndroid 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is much too broad - if properly comprehensive, it would contain at least tens of thousands of entries. Also the categorization of "parent" is not special or specific enough - what is the use of this category? It seems rather gratuitous (by comparison, the recent "Living people" category is of course broader, but it has a specific deliberate function for Wikipedia policy purposes i.e. identifying articles which need extra scrutiny to protect against legal and reputational risk.). as an aside, the current entries in the fictional parents category list also seem like a very narrow selection - mainly cartoon and comic characters. Bwithh 04:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree, the category will soon become overpopulated and therefore too difficult to use to be of benefit. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If Category:Parents existed, then there might be a basis for keeping this. - EurekaLott 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. per nom.--cjllw | TALK 23:53, 5 March 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 separate. -- TexasAndroid 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Slo-mo 04:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep separate These are two separate categories. One contains colleges and universities and the other contains descriptions of types of colleges and universities. --JeffW 05:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate AND Remission both articles AND Rename U&C by type —What is wrong with both articles is that they do not have the proper focuses. This lack of focus primarily in U&C by type is what is causing overlap that leads to this misguided CFD. U&C types blurs its focus slightly with business school, which should be removed from U&C types and for-profit college and vocational school should be added (and now are).
  • The fine-focused mission of the U&C types article would be: "types of whole (perhaps multi-topic) institutions, especially related to ownership/funding (e.g., private versus public) or overall character (e.g., the Whosiwhatsit Beauty College and Business School as career college or more accurately vocational school)". As is nearly already the case, this would focus U&C types on types of universities, where a university is composed of multiple schools/colleges.
  • The fine-focused mission of a renamed U&C by type article would be: "single academic topic addressed within (perhaps a portion of) an institution", such as just the "school of architecture" sliver within a university or a stand-alone single-topic whole institution such as "school of art" regarding The Art Institute of Chicago, focusing on the single academic topic (whereas private university over in U&C types would describe on the whole-institution ownership/funding for The Art Institute of Chicago). In recent years in the USA the far more common case is the former, not the latter, because most stand-alone institutions have been acquired into or are affiliated with a larger university. For example, U&C by type should not contain public university or private university because that refers to a whole institution.
  • Conversely, U&C types should not contain business school per se (because that is a single academic topic that belongs in a renamed Category:U&C by type), but many stand-alone business schools (and I am talking about the kind of vocational school that teaches people to type X words per minute, not the portion of a university that grants MBAs) are for-profit businesses, so career college, for-profit college, and vocational school belong in U&C types to fully address this type of business school, permitting business school's removal from U&C types.
  • If this proposal for remissioning and renaming is rejected, then I would vote for reversing the merge: eliminate U&C by type by merging it into U&C types, because at Universities (in the plural) and colleges (in the plural) by type I would expect to find a sorted list (or drill-down equivalent) of the names of all universities and colleges in the world arranged by type. Conversely, at U&C types I would expect to find a list of types of whole universities and types of whole stand-alone colleges (USA-specific term), and, sure enough, that is exactly what I find there, with the exception of business school. Being a list/drill-down of institution names sorted by type is clearly not at all what U&C by type is trying to do, so it is quite clearly misnamed. Because U&C by type is fundamentally flawed in multiple ways, then it should preferrably be remissioned or, if need be, eliminated. —Optikos 16:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE one is a type category, the other is a cateogyr for individual schools 132.205.45.110 20:43, 10 March 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. -- TexasAndroid 18:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant --> merge - Slo-mo 04:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• hmm. Not entirely redundant, but certainly too confusing. Remember that an "Art school" is a school which teaches art; a "School of art" can mean a movement (like the Flemish School, for instance). Grutness...wha? 00:33, 6 March 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. -- TexasAndroid 18:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category with no subcategories, pages, etc. and the only contributor was Huaiwei. Эйрон Кинни (t) 04:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per above. Эйрон Кинни (t) 04:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Gabrielite Brothers' Schools, but not Category:Gabrielite Brothers' schools -- evrik 19:05, 6 March 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. -- TexasAndroid 18:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Delete Empty; appears abandoned; correct form would include "Members of the European Parliament from Italy". Duplicates Category:Images of MEPs from Italy, 6th term. JonHarder 03:37, 5 March 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 all three. -- TexasAndroid 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Category:Coastal towns in Balochistan and Category:Coastal towns in Sindh.

• Delete all three because they are made redundant by the Category:Coastal cities and towns in Pakistan as there are only a handful of articles which could be categorised under Coastal Cities and Towns in Pakistan. Since there are only two coastal provinces (Balochistan and Sindh) it does not make sense to have two sub-categories or the separate Coastal Towns category. Green Giant 03:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support delete. If the content will grow to dozens and dozens of places it could be always splitted. Pavel Vozenilek 22:14, 9 March 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 speedy rename to Category:Rat-baiting dog breeds. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Rename to Category:Rat baiting dog breeds fixes capitalization issue with "B"aiting and removes "s" from dogs. SirIsaacBrock 01:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Rat-baiting dog breeds ...? David Kernow 11:32, 5 March 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. -- TexasAndroid 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from AFD:

Doesn't need a full category for one person. (originally listed by User:JoshuaZ) — sjorford (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as per nom. David Kernow 16:46, 7 March 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.