Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 28

< November 27	November 29 >

November 28

Category:History of ancient Pakistan

Category:History of ancient Pakistan to Category:Ancient history of Pakistan

Rename, more accurate D-Boy 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pakistan did not exist before 1947.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. utcursch | talk 07:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - bad category, per Bakaman. I'd be tempted to put up for deletion. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename It is better not to have these categories directly in Category:History of Pakistan. Most national history categories contain articles relating to before the current state existed. Osomec 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The idea did not exist before 1930's. There is no Pakistani ethnic group to populate Pakistan, and the area that is present-day Pakistan is quoted by countless (infinite) reliable sources as India before it was forcibly carved out from India.Bakaman _Bakatalk 07:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - baka is right. the country didn't exist--D-Boy 23:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Baka seems to miss the point that very few modern countries have existed for more than a fraction of recorded history, so Pakistan is not remarkable in this regard. But every major national history category is full of material from before the present state existed in any case as it is the most convenient way to organise the material. Wimstead 00:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no history in Pakistan (pre-1930's) that does not overlap with India. Therefore Ancient Pakistan is illogical. There is no Pakistani ethnic group, see above comment.Baka man 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Sport in East Riding of Yorkshire~~
~~Category:Sport in East Riding of Yorkshire to Category:Sport in the East Riding of Yorkshire~~
Rename, To align with the other sub-categories of Category:East Riding of Yorkshire. Keith D 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Seems logical and uncontroversial. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Unofficial golf tournaments~~
~~Category:Unofficial golf tournaments to Category:Unofficial money golf tournaments~~
Relisted from 18th November in the hope of generating more discussion. I didn't want to close it "no consensus" with only two conflicting contributions, both of which were agreed that the current name is unsatisfactory. So do we rename, please? And if so, what to? --RobertG ♬ talk 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Most of these events are sanctioned by one of the professional golf tours that sanction the "official" events. The distinction is that the prize money does not count towards the relevant tour's official money list or order of merit. Hoylake 00:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but there's got to be a more elegant alternative than unofficial money golf tournaments. My first reaction to the proposed title was "What the hell is unofficial money?". Maybe I'm just dense! Pascal.Tesson 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In relisting the debate I feel duty bound to suggest something. It's a tricky one. How about rename to Category:Golf tournaments with unofficial prizemoney, or Categeory:Non-tour professional golf tournaments? I agree with Pascal that including "unofficial money" would not be desirable. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The alternative proposals are worse. Category:Golf tournaments with unofficial prizemoney sounds like the players are slipped illicit tax-free cash prizes and Categeory:Non-tour professional golf tournaments implies the these tournaments have nothing to do with a tour, which is not the case. Any perfectly clear name would be far too long, so we should rely on people reading the introduction to the category for clarification. Osomec

Rename per nom. Twittenham 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Anti-Judaic people~~
Merge into Category:Anti-Semitic people, this seems like a duplicate to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom (or delete both). Cloachland 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also the November 23rd discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

Comment: This is not in any way related to the vote taking place here. Unfortunately this CfD has been launched over wrong pretences. From most of the comments, you can see that many of the people voting clearly do not understand the distinction between these two terms—and the closing admin should take this into consideration. Taxico 11:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. There was no attempt made to discuss this before proposing deletion (whatever happened to "Wikipedia is not a democracy"??). I just started this category yesterday following an RFC and the discussions here. This is not the same as Category:Anti-Semitic people in the same sense that the two corresponding articles (Anti-Judaism and Antisemitism) are not the same. Taxico 19:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, but note that this forum is a place for discussion. There is no requirement to discuss categories on other talk pages before posting them here. If the nominator feels the category needs to be considered for deletion, merging or renaming, this is the proper official forum. Dugwiki 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Anti-Judaic people" are really antisemitic people because religious antisemitism is just one type of antisemitism, out of many. Beit Or 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per ProveIt - this seems like a no-brainer, Tewfik^Talk 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another POV category; oherwise merge to Category:Anti-Semitic people. I understand the theoretical distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-semitism, but they don't exist so widely as separate phenomena that they need separate categories ... though since both categories are based on assessments of someone's beliefs, I would much prefer deletion. WP:CAT says that "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." I think that there will be very few cases where someone's inclusion in this category is self-evident and uncontroversial. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a fine distinction between people practicing antisemitism and those holding anti-Judaic views. Most antisemites are not anti-Judaic, and many anti-Judaic people are not necessarily antisemitic. You bring up questions about verifiability, but that warning on WP:V applies to category naming. Right now you're voting to move this category to Category:Anti-Semitic people. How's that going to make verifiability any easier? Most anti-Judaics are well-noted for their anti-Judaism. This is not true of antisemites, for they usually try to hide their antisemitism behind different guises (one being anti-Judaism). Right now the only person in this category is John Chrysostom. He's a well-noted anti-Judaic. But many (if not most) scholars believe he was not antisemitic (see this article). If the merger is successful he will end up in Category:Anti-Semitic people. Taxico 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply If you look above, my strong preference is to delete this category: merger is, for me a second-best, and I think that that the worst option is to keep the category.
I think you are right to note that the distinction between anti-Judaism is a fine one; I just think that it is too fine to be useful in categorisation, and will cause endless arguments on two fronts:
What degree of anti-Judaism qualifies someone for is category? Unless it is to include everyone who is not Jewish, there has to be a threshold, and how is that going to be self-evident per WP:CAT?

How exactly is the fine distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-semitism to be assessed? Many of the most virulent antisemites have included a fair amount of anti-Judaic rhetoric in heir outpourings, including the Nazis, who quoted Luther's antiJudaic rants. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The categorization here was meant to be a very simple one. Unlike antisemtism (which is broadly defined and occurs in different forms and guises), anti-Judaism is very narrowly defined and largely occurs (or occured, as it has largely been replaced with antisemitism) among a handful number of Christian (or maybe Muslim) clergy. So anti-Judaism is a lot easier to categorize. The categorization is even easier considering most anti-Judaic people are very openly anti-Judaic (and a lot of times consider this to be a virtue). This note concludes my effort to keep this category alive. It was meant to be a very simple category, but I guess it's relation to Category:Anti-Semitic people (which people seem unhappy about) has proved to be destructive. Happy voting everyone. Taxico 14:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - better to keep all antisemites together. Subcategorization makes it harder too manage. Gidonb 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Hair-splitting that will only cause confusion. Sumahoy 04:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Proveit et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, difference is not clearly defined. (Radiant) 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category is too broad. There are a few billion people who believe the Judaic religion is somehow incorrect, many of whom, like it or not, believe all Jews are on their way to eternal damnation. That's not anti-Semitism. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is very interesting because your vote will result in the exact opposite of what you're expressing. Any "delete" or "merge" is nothing but an endorsement of the view that anti-Judaism (criticism of Judaism as a religion) and Antisemitism (hatred toward Jewish people) are the same. (See my comment in response to BrownHairedGirl.) I hope I'm not damned eternally. --Taxico 09:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote weak keep if I thought this was vote was teetering in your favor. People seem completely unaware of what they are voting for, and I don't think your description of this as a "fine distinction" really cuts it. There's a vast difference between believing/teaching that Jews are going to Hell, wanting them to go to Hell, and wanting to help them get there as quickly as possible. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is just an endorsement of the view that this is a non-standard and unhelpful category type. Osomec 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present this contains only one article and it looks unhelpful. Generally articles are not classified by negative characteristics. Osomec 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Kazakh ski jumpers~~
Rename to Category:Kazakhstani ski jumpers, convention of Category:Kazakhstani sportspeople. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Cloachland 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename.--Mike Selinker 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. - Darwinek 11:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Irish American Football Players~~
~~Delete as nationality / ethnicity / ocupation triple intersection. -- ProveIt ^(talk)~~
Delete per nom. Not a useful category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this for people from Ireland who play American football, or Irish-Americans who play (some unspecified code of) football? as there is Category:American football players by nationality. Mairi 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Roman Catholic Communities in Ontario~~

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Mairi 03:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Roman Catholic communities in Ontario, Wouldn't the membership criteria require references? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Applies an absolute to what is doubtless a condition of flux. Hawkestone 16:05, 2 December 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 section.
~~Category:American clergy by state~~
Merge into Category:American clergy. I think it is much too early to beak up American clegy, since the parent is so small, subdividing it further would actually make navigation more difficult. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Ohio, Louisiana, and Virginia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination. There are only 75 entries in the parent category, which is much too small to justify division into ~~75 sub-categories~~. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
duh, I mean "much too small to justify division into 50 sub-categories". --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. (Radiant) 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Rotana Singers~~
Rename to Category:Rotana artists, convention of Category:Artists by record label. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, matches precedent. --tjstrf talk 15:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Student Radio~~
Merge into Category:College radio stations, as duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The three articles that were categorized here were simultaneously filed in Category:Student Radio in the United Kingdom; I've removed all three as unnecessary duplication. Do go ahead and categoryredirect it to Category:College radio stations (which itself is probably primed for a rename, since it's not really a good idea to use the US-specific term as an international default), since I'm almost certain it'll get recreated otherwise. Bearcat 19:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the UK "college" does not include or mean the same thing as "university". The parent category should be renamed. Hawkestone 11:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've initiated a discussion at Category talk:College radio stations to solicit input as to what the category's new name should be; it can't be put to a formal CFR nomination until a potential new name can be proposed in the original nomination. Please do come participate in the discussion. Bearcat 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Student radio" may actually be the best term - it avoids the mess of using "College" and could also encompass the articles on awards for student radio. Timrollpickering 14:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It'd also include any high school radio stations, which we have some articles on (and no current category for). Mairi 04:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Cute 'em ups~~

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cute 'em ups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not objectively defined variety of Shoot 'em up computer and video games, and the relevant Cute 'em up article serves merely as a redirect to Shoot 'em up. Combination 13:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. "Cute" is not objectively definable. (Radiant) 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced neologism. Doczilla 08:08, 30 November 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 section.
~~Category:The X-Files~~

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:X-Files actors to Category:The X-Files actors

Category:X-Files characters to Category:The X-Files characters

Category:X-Files episodes to Category:The X-Files episodes

rename all - subcategory on Category:The X-Files. Zwuiac 11:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom A category name should almost always match the spelling of its associated main article. Dugwiki 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Cloachland 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Tim! 18:00, 28 November 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 section.
~~Category:Acting First Ladies~~

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Acting First Ladies to Category:Acting First Ladies of the United States

Rename, to match category:First Ladies of the United States. Sumahoy 04:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Cloachland 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this undefined category. (Nancy Reagan made a living acting.) Doczilla 08:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. Hawkestone 11:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doczilla - What separates this subcategory from category:First Ladies of the United States? ~ BigrTex 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no official list of First Ladies and this generates some confusion, mainly when the President was a bachelor/widower or when their wife declined/was unavailable to serve as hostess. See Talk:First Lady of the United States#Specific examples and loose ends for some of the problems. Timrollpickering 16:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - It would be good to add some explanation to the category page. ~ BigrTex 18:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 16:24, 4 December 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 section.
~~Category:Irish-American editors~~
Category:Irish-American editors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, no reason to classify editors by ethnicity, or reason to think Irish-American editors are a particularly encyclopedic intersection. Mairi 03:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nationality / profession / ethnicity triple intersection. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cloachland 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CATGRS, unless somebody can make a convincing case that being an Irish-American editor is objectively different from being a German-American editor, an Australian-American editor or an Icelandic-American editor, delete as overcategorization. Bearcat 01:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It looks like the category was created to accomodate a single person whose attributes are sufficiently covered by other existing categories. --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:People who let their mental retardation Influence their speaking.~~

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mairi 03:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People who let their mental retardation Influence their speaking. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Nonsense/vandalism. Oden 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - created to attack a prominent person involved in a controversy. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 28 November 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 section.
~~Category:People who let their retardation Influence their speaking.~~

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mairi 03:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People who let their retardation Influence their speaking. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Nonsense Oden 02:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - created solely to attack a prominent person involved in a controversy. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as attack, and possibly ban User:Fatrick Arbuckle. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:02, 28 November 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 section.
~~More American bishops by nationality~~
Category:Asian American bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Chinese American bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:English American bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, more American bishops by ethnicity categories that were created after earlier cfd on American bishops by nationality that resulted in deleting the others. No apparent reason why these particular ethnicities merit having categories. Mairi 02:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nationality / profession / ethnicity triple intersection. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as over-categorisation per earlier CFD. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overcat. (Radiant) 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:S.C. Johnson brands~~

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to SC Johnson brands. TonyTheTiger 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:S.C. Johnson brands to Category:S. C. Johnson brands

Rename, A space between the initials is proper spelling. TonyTheTiger 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but to SC Johnson brands, the way the company spells it as in: http://scjohnson.com/family/fam_pre_pre_news.asp?art_id=258 BTW, the S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management has no space between the initials on their website as per: http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/news/pressrelease/lee_oct202003.html Brholden 04:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. "SC Johnson" is the flagship brand, but the category is for all brands owned by S. C. Johnson the company. A comparison would be Category:Kellogg brands, so named because it is for all brands owned by the Kellogg Company, including Keebler and Famous Amos, and not just the flagship Kellogg's.-choster 15:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But their company name is "SC Johnson" and not "S. C. Johnson" or "S.C. Johnson" as per their homepage at: http://www.scjohnson.com/ (On that page, SC Johnson appears 8 times and S. C. Johnson appears once.) Brholden 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They also give their mailing address on their "Contact" page at http://www.scjohnson.com/contact/ as "SC Johnson" Brholden 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, they call their family of brands the "SC Johnson Family of Brands" as per http://www.scjbrands.com/ Brholden 01:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd because the company is officially incorporated as S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. and all their website copyrights indicate as much. TonyTheTiger 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another company that has a similar situation is DuPont where the company name is actually E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, but the Wikipedia page and their company branding is DuPont. Another datapoint is that the Wikipedia pages for most enterprises is at least a little different than their legal name as the "Inc." (or other suffix) is generally dropped. Brholden 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not especially opposed to "SC Johnson" but these cases are not analogous. The question here is which orthography to use for the common name of the company, whereas the case of DuPont you raise is whether to use the common name instead of the full name. There isn't a clear standard—one the one hand, we have Category:Procter & Gamble brands not Category:P&G brands; on the other we have Category:Heinz brands not Category:H. J. Heinz brands.-choster 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - in this case the orthographic choice also aligns with the choice between the "common" and "legal" names of the company. Going back to Dupont's case, they have a "catch-all" category instead of a "brand" category - we have Category:DuPont not Category:E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, but it is the same issue (without a clear answer). I am good either way, but I definitely prefer the solution used for Heinz and Dupont of using the common name rather than the legal name. There are definitely some corner cases where the common name is unrelated to the legal name such as in the case of Subway (restaurant) where the legal name is Doctor's Associates, Inc. A category such as "Category:Doctor's Associates sandwiches" would be unintelligible, where as "Category:Subway sandwiches" would be meaningful (hopefully neither will appear). Brholden 23:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two other examples Category:HSBC not Category:HSBC Holdings & Category:Armani brands not Category:Giorgio Armani Brands Brholden 00:48, 5 December 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 section.
~~Category:Adult learners of Welsh~~

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Adult learners of Welsh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Imagine what this precedent could lead to. Evening class attendance is not encyclopedic. This is not a defining characteristic of these people. It may mean a lot to some Welsh nationalists that these individuals have taken the trouble, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic and the issue is better covered in an article Piccadilly 01:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since we have the highly populated Category:Adult learners of English. Wait, nevermind. Delete per above.—WAvegetarian•(talk)

Delete per nom. Sumahoy 04:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by trival attribute. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ProveIt Cloachland 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 09:03, 29 November 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 section.
~~Category:National poets~~

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National poets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, partial merge. There was previously some confusion between the concepts of Poet Laureate and "national" poet at the latter's article. While Poet Laureate is an appointive office in many countries, the roster of the "national" poets is defined only by subjective tradition, and inappropriate for a category (though I think the list can handle it nicely). All articles on poets laureate should of course be merged under Category:Poets Laureate.Pharos 01:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not an official office. No need to merge now. If people want to add anyone else to Category:Poets Laureate, they can do that whenever. Piccadilly 01:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Too subjective a concept for a category: see WP:CAT #8 "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:12, 28 November 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 section.
~~Category:BCS Young Professionals Group Chairs~~
~~Category:BCS Young Professionals Group Chairs looks to me like someone's failed attempt at creating an article. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete per nom. This should perhaps be revisited if the chairs themselves are notable enough for their own articles, although I am skeptical. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also have doubts that even an article is appropriate. One article about the British Computer Society is appropriate of course, but is a break out article too much? Sumahoy 04:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Category:Computer and Videogames game guide cleanup~~
~~Category:Computer and Videogames game guide cleanup to Category:Computer and video games game guide cleanup~~
Rename, To reflect WP:CVG naming conventions. Thunderbrand 00:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please put the talk pages of the articles in this administrative self-reference category, not the articles themselves. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]