Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 5

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

December 5

Category:Mario Lanza songs

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mario Lanza songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
also nominating Category:Sissel songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete both, per my reasoning at the discussion on Category:Jussi Bjorling songs below - i.e. that arias/songs by (opera) singer who has recorded them is not a good category structure to start, because of the horrendous risk of category clutter. For example, Nessun Dorma is in the Mario Lanza category and in theory it could be in a category for every tenor who's ever recorded it. Where do you stop? BencherliteTalk 23:47, 5 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:Satirical political organizations and Category:Joke political parties

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 merge Category:Satirical political organizations to Category:Joke political parties. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Same thing, merge. I believe the former name is better, although some related categories are named "parody <foo>". >Radiant< 22:49, 5 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:Joke organizations

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Nearly all of these are political in nature (and thus should be put in Category:Satirical political organizations, mentioned above) and the remainder are either fictional or not actually an organization, or both. Thus there is no actual content for this cat, and it should be deleted. >Radiant< 22:49, 5 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:WABC-TV

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WABC-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper overcategorization of television personalities by station per extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 9 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:Festivals in Europe

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Festivals in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - redundant to the Category:Festivals by country structure. Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary duplicate. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 9 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:Quilt Art

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: nuke. — xDanielx T/C\R 08:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Quilt Art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete one article category, similar to Art Quilt, with a name coming from one source. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Knights Templar

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 keep as destination for the Category:Medieval Knights Templar merge below. Kbdank71 16:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Knights Templar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This seems to have been deprecated in favor of Category:Medieval Knights Templar, but not sure that that's the better solution; all other interwiki's have the category without the "Medieval" and probably there is wisdom there, so perhaps a reverse merge of Category:Medieval Knights Templar into this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 5 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:Medieval Knights Templar

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 merge. Kbdank71 16:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Medieval Knights Templar to Category:Knights Templar
Nominator's rationale: Merge, per above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 5 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:Jussi Bjorling songs

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jussi Bjorling songs to Category:Jussi Björling songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. His name, and WP biography title, have two dots over the "o". Possible speedy, but some people always have an issue of keyboard usability, etc., so I bring it here instead. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 5 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:Go!Products

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Go!Products (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete three item category for official products for a particular platform, OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 5 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:Festivals in Stuttgart

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 merge Category:Festivals in Stuttgart to Category:Stuttgart and Category:Festivals in Germany. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Festivals in Stuttgart to Category:Stuttgart
Nominator's rationale: Merge, one article in the category, found in the orphanage, should merge with the city's category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge twice per Otto. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 5 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:Electoral divisions always held by the Australian Labor Party

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electoral divisions always held by the Australian Labor Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete we don't categorize electoral divisions on how they tend to vote: OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 5 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:Diocese of Clifton

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diocese of Clifton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete one item cat found in the orphanage, most Roman Catholic dioceses cannot support a category since we have usually only one, two, or a few articles relevant to them unless we start dumping geographic articles into each of them (a very bad idea), so this is unneeded. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 5 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:Credu

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: speedy deleted, but not by me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Credu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category of unsure scope, meaning, or use. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"CREDU" appears to be a distance education agency in South Korea, which had its main article speedied as G11 five separate times on December 3. The category was clearly filed incorrectly and meant for a single article; consider it speedied. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Constitutional republics

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 16:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Constitutional republics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete POV categorization; although constitutional republic has a variety of meanings there are disputes as to whether certain countries meet the definition, particularly true in theocratic governments where the will of God as interpreted by those in power always seems to trump any secular constitutional terms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since category is undefined and the correct way of defining is not obvious, per nom. At it's widest it could apply to every state that has a constitution and calls itself a republic, but this probably is not what the category is meant to encompass. Snocrates 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Snocrates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Clearly a part of a larger and correct category system of types of governments of countries. Government types are encyclopedic. The meaning of a Constitutional republic is very clear; read the article. Does the category lack a statement of inclusion. Then write one. Are there a few articles that do not belong here? Then fix them. Deleting every category with a few doubtful articles is no solution to anything. POV pushing of trying to get rid of article and facts that a nominator might personally object to is not an acceptable reason for deletion anywhere in the WP policies and procedures. If the WP article says a country is a constitutional republic, then the country is a constitutional republic until the article is changed by the WP editing process of that article. Hmains (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If its so clearly defined, as in the first line of that article: "A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens." How do: Cuba, Commonwealth of England, Kyrgyzstan, Egypt, and many others qualify - the essence of parliamentary democracy is that the "constitution" is mutable by the current parliament in power. And as for elections, well, one man's election is another's charade - who by the way elected Cromwell and did the then existing "constitution" of England - according to which he must govern to be a constitutional republic - permit him to usurp the throne? And then there's the problem of temporality: Germany may be a constitutional republic, but our article is about more than the Federal Republic of Germany, and includes its less savory history (say 1933-45) which really doesn't smell like a constitutional republic however one would define it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are still missing the point entirely. The point is to help WP by improving things, not trying every angle to try to delete things. Deletion helps nothing and no one. If an article is in a wrong category, fix it. True, it does take some more time and effort than just nominating everything for deletion. Also, not confuse Constitutional republic (not all of which are nice) and liberal democracy (which many now think are nice). Two different cuts in categorizing governments/societies mean two different things. This list is 'as of now', meaning it categorizes the country by its current government structure. This is a fact, not a 'problem'. So arguments regarding historical governments are irrelevant. Hmains (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Deletion helps nothing and no one." That's a gross over-generalization that I would not agree with. Sometimes when things are FUBAR it's more helpful to delete and start from scratch. Not that it is necessarily here; if you strongly believe this can be adequately defined/cleaned up, I look forward to you doing so if there is no consensus to "delete". Snocrates 09:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Probably so, but not in this case. How are we going to improve the term 'constitutional republic' as that is clearly a defined form of government. How are we going to imrove the countries that get included in this category? WP cannot change their governments! Deleting one of the subcats of Category:Countries by form of government does not make good sense to me. Why target this subcat? Because some constitutional republics are poorly governed or ignore varying parts of their constitutions? Should the subcat Category:Constitutional monarchies be deleted because some monarchs govern poorly or are evil people? I don't think this deletion activity is very useful to WP and don't think it positively contributes to WP. Hmains (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no need to have yet another "almost-everybody-here" type of category. From the guidelines: "2. An article will often be in several categories. Restraint should be used as categories become less effective the more there are on any given article". Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:31, 8 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:Art Quilt

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. — xDanielx T/C\R 08:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Art Quilt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete one article cat, found in the orphanage with a title that seems to have come from a single source. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Female draughts players

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 merge Category:Female draughts players to Category:Draughts players. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Female draughts players to Category:Draughts players
Nominator's rationale: No reason to categorize draughts players by sex. BencherliteTalk 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume there's no "men's" and "women's" leagues/rules as in other sports & games categories? If so, Carlossuarez46, then we may have found -- at last -- a gender/occupation category on which we can agree. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wedded to this surviving, but there are in fact women's championships and competitions. nl:Europees kampioenschap dammen voor vrouwen, nl:Wereldkampioenschap dammen voor vrouwen, etc. There's also been articles on Women in Checkers. Still this seems to be a bigger thing in the Netherlands and the Baltic states than here.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:10, 7 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:Armoured fighting vehicles of 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 rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Armoured fighting vehicles of the United States to Category:Armored fighting vehicles of the United States
Category:World War II armoured fighting vehicles of the United States to Category:World War II armored fighting vehicles of the United States
Category:Cold War armoured fighting vehicles of the United States to Category:Cold War armored fighting vehicles of the United States
Nominator's rationale: American English, they aren't called "armoured" in the USA. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:03, 5 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:Professional sports players who died mid-career

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional sports players who died mid-career (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, We've been through this before, Dead people by occupation isn't feasible, please see the discussion of June 27th. -- Prove It (talk) 15:50, 5 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:War on Terror

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 no consensus. Kbdank71 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:War on Terror to Category:War on Terrorism
Nominator's rationale: Rename.

Most all US formal documents on this subject refer to "War on Terrorism".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/faq-what.html - FAQ - What is the War on Terrorism?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/100dayreport.html - The Global War on Terrorism - The First 100 Days

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/ - National Strategy for Combating Terrorism

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/ - Progress Report On the Global War on Terrorism.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/index.html - CIA & The War on Terrorism

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html - Terrorism FAQs

To verify this, and find official Whitehouse documents on the War on Terrorism , use the search:

google: site:whitehouse.gov "war on terrorism"

google: site:cia.gov "war on terrorism"

Notice that if you instead search for the informal phrase, you will mostly find press statements, not formal documents:

google: site:whitehouse.gov "war on terror"

google: site:cia.gov "war on terror"

The Wikipedia title and categories should use the formal name, Even if the current president often uses the informal name. GodWasAnAlien (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename. Rename, as "War on Terror" does not make much sense, and "War on Terrorism" is the official, more proper term (In the US, which the articles center around.). YesuSmith (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Dispute should be resolved with main article, War on Terrorism first.YesuSmith (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I will list reasons here for each name that I have seen. Feel free to update the list.GodWasAnAlien (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • War on Terrorism:
      • Official phrase used by official documents of the Whitehouse and CIA is "War on Terrorism".
      • "War on Terrorism" was used before 2001.
      • "War on Terror" is an informal abbreviation of "War on Terrorism".
    • War on Terror:
      • Bush says "War on Terror" more than "War on Terrorism".
        • Even if Bush uses the informal name more than the official name, I'm not sure that is relevant compared to official documents. The speech of this president is often intentionally informal.
      • Google has mor matches for "War on Terror" than "War on Terrorism"
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:Cultural Properties of Busan

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 Category:Cultural Properties of Busan to Category:Busan culture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural Properties of Busan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Busan culture, convention of Category:South Korean culture. -- Prove It (talk) 14:55, 5 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:Minor basilicas in Rome

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 merge Category:Minor basilicas in Rome to Category:Basilica churches in Rome. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Minor basilicas in Rome to Category:Basilica churches in Rome
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Since all but four basilicas in the world are minor basilicas it makes no sense to have separate categories. We already have Category:Patriarchal basilicas for the four major basilicas, so this category is extraneous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 5 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:Minor basilica churches

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 merge Category:Minor basilica churches to Category:Basilica churches. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Minor basilica churches to Category:Basilica churches
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Since all but four basilicas in the world are minor basilicas it makes no sense to have separate categories. We already have Category:Patriarchal basilicas for the four major basilicas, so this category is extraneous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 5 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:Abandonware

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abandonware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The term Abandonware is disputed (for legal reasons), and should therefore not be applied to actual software. SharkD (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abandonware seems to mean anything that isn't kept up to date to work on the next sort of hardware, which presumably includes every hardware-software combination (video pinball machines, e.g.), and every game that may have flourished on Windows 2000 but cannot work on Vista, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:20, 5 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:Online Football (soccer) games

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online Football (soccer) games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Very small category. Not notable. SharkD (talk) 04:37, 5 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:Text-based video games

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Speedy delete at author's request (WP:CSD#G7), next time please use {{db-author}}. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Text-based video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Didn't realize there was already a category like it. SharkD (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:Online games

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 no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Online games to Category:Multiplayer online games
Nominator's rationale: Merge, I don't see any non-multiplayer games in this category (although, I admit I didn't look too closely, and I'm not that familiar with these games). SharkD (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that Yahoo! Games has a list of singleplayer online games. Maybe these could be moved to Category:Singleplayer online games or Category:Singleplayer games played online? I'm not sure these games are even that notable. SharkD (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I personally went through the category and sorted them based on type. SharkD (talk) 08:39, 5 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.