Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 6

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 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This simply is not a 'subcategory' of poets; rather, he is a single poet. This information might be relocated to the Burroughs page itself. Matthew 20:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is plenty of precedent now for categories about people.--Mike Selinker 21:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mike Selinker. Not all people that have cats should, but there're a lot of articles about Burroughs. Also, it binds the novel and short story cats together. ×Meegs 23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More than enough content to justify a separate category.Staffelde 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In that case, it might be reasonable to suppose that there are a large number of categories that need created for other American poets-- I imagine there are several who have spawned more articles and information than Burroughs, but he is the only American poet with a personal subcategory. I looked and Shakespeare has a category, so your decision is reasonable;) Matthew 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there undoubtedly are. Please add any you think warranted. Ursula K. Le Guin is not most notable as a poet, but she has one. Septentrionalis 22:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gamaliel 09:21, 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. -- TexasAndroid 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation should not occur in the middle of the name. JPD (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename in agreement with JPD. Barno 19:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per above.Staffelde 00:09, 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 Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 19:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We just deleted this and other similar categories last month.—Markles 15:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually it should be a speedy and I tagged it as such. For the record, the CfD tag was removed before I added the speedy tag. Don't know if you really want to add the CfD tag back or just let it go to speedy. Vegaswikian 19:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy is fine.—Markles 19:11, 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 19:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duplicate of Category:Municipalities in Carazo, originally designated for Category:Municipalities of Nicaragua - inconsistant naming with other related categories. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

• Delete as per nom (seems logical).Staffelde 11:53, 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 delete. -- TexasAndroid 19:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same case as above, duplicate of Category:Municipalities in Carazo. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

• Delete as per nom.Staffelde 11:54, 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 merge to Category:MU* games. -- TexasAndroid 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (There are several other things proposed, but does not appear to be any consensous beyond the basic merge.)[reply]

I'm not clear on the distinction to be made against Category:MU* games, where all articles are also listed; there's no category description and no main article. Or if kept, can we add a description or rename to a clearer term so that non-gamers such as myself don't start adding checkers and Monopoly? -choster 14:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Choster that this category should be renamed if it's only intended for multiplayer online games. I don't play these, but I play hundreds of multiplayer boardgames, cardgames, etc., of which at least a few (Settlers of Catan, Ticket to Ride, etc.) are notable as Spiele des Jahres winners played by tens of thousands of people and featured in the most notable game magazines. Heck, Monopoly is a game, it's multiplayer, and it's more notable than any entry currently in this category. Barno 19:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This category doesn't seem intended for all multiplayer online games, or it would be swamped with MMORPGs like EverQuest. I think the creator is trying to create an inclusive category for MUD (multi-user dungeon) games, but the D is sometimes replaced with something else, hence the asterisk. I think the right thing to do is to merge it and Category:MU* games into a new Category:MUD games, and live with the minor negatives consequences of doing so. Certainly anyone looking for this stuff will know the term "MUD."--Mike Selinker 07:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's a repeat of other categories (either a repeat of 'MU* games', 'MU* servers' or some other category), and seems to be not intended for all 'multiplayer games', like the other comments before me have been saying. This category isn't beneficial, might as well delete (which is technically a merge, since all of the articles are already in the other relevant categories). Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 01:45, 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 delete. -- TexasAndroid 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of the logos are being characterized by their kinds (Academic institutions, radio, television, etc...) this category is not only superfluous, but wouldn't help someone who was looking through the logos, since one would have to look through the subcats, then not see the logo they were looking for and then wonder if it's in the new logos. Also, "new logos" is very inexact name. Some logos (ie-Coca Cola) have been updated and changed innumberable times. Esprit15d 13:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 14:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Aelfthrytha 03:52, 8 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. -- TexasAndroid 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less cumbersome. David Kernow 13:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. David Kernow 13:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (proposer)[reply]
• Rename as per nom.217.158.132.25 00:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ( = Staffelde 11:55, 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 delete. -- TexasAndroid 20:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this months ago, and just made it unnecessary by creating a bunch of more specific categories such as Category:American Basketball League (1925-1955) players and its subcategories. So this can be deleted.--Mike Selinker 12:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate with the relevant subcategories. This is only redundant for those with a thorough knowledge of basketball history. I will start by adding the category mentioned above. Bhoeble 14:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Q: Were there any other professional leagues before the NBA other than the ABL and the National Basketball League (United States), whose players also have a category? Also, since the ABL time period overlaps the NBA, its cat should not be in this cat, I believe. ×Meegs 15:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, that's one of the reasons I'm suggesting this be deleted. As far as leagues go, there were a bunch of local pro-am leagues like the New York League, but as far as I know, the ABL, NBL, and BAA were pretty much the only big leagues until the BAA morphed into the NBA.--Mike Selinker 19:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Even if there are a few players that can't be categorized by league (and I'm not sure that there are), this cat is far too awkward. ×Meegs 23:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Meegs. Also category naming seems confusing. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 12:06, 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 no consensous. -- TexasAndroid 19:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No subcategories. Appears to have been created and abandonded after some discussion on the talk page. JonHarder 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suppose if no-one is using it, it should go, but in itself it seems a perfectly logical category that could easily be used.Staffelde 11:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate as per comments by User:Staffelde. talk on its talk page was fruitful and abandonning the page did not come up Mayumashu 14:55, 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 Keep. -- TexasAndroid 19:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divisive and Inflammatory. Trödel•talk 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How does a user's own choice of self-identification labels qualify as divisive or inflammatory? I'm genuinely curious; I just don't see it. Keep unless there's a far better reason for deletion than this. Bearcat 09:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Why is it divisive or infammatory? I would like to know. Afonso Silva 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a valid category. Conscious 10:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above.Staffelde 11:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Recognition of a division that exists is not divisive. Inflammatory? I can't begin to guess what you mean. pat8722 02:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepBut I like to be called a communist? How is that divisive or inflammatory unless I insist on writing 'Workers of the world unite!' on every page in Wiki, for example? Aelfthrytha 03:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Bearcat and everyone else. Эйрон Кинни (t) 05:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Putting this on somebody else's userpage is strongly deprecated, however. 21:58, 10 March 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.

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 19:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:Book publishing companies of the United States (where I've shunted the only article it contained) and/or Category:American publishers (people) Delete . Calsicol 01:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as per nom.Staffelde 11:52, 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 both. -- TexasAndroid 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a piggyback on an ongoing CFD discussion for Category:Sports in the United States by city. I propose renaming the following categories only, to match the proposed renames in their parent categories. — Dale Arnett 00:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports venues in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota to Category:Sports venues in Minneapolis-St. Paul

Category:Sports venues in Nashville, Tennessee to Category:Sports venues in Nashville

• Support As per nom. Unnecessary disambiguation is cluttersome. Calsicol 01:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 05:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Good.--Mike Selinker 06:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Ugur Basak 14:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we please change venues to sites while we are about it? Septentrionalis 21:59, 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.