- 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty, redundant with the more appropriately named Category:Weapons of Norway. siafu 22:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. (In case it's not obvious) siafu 23:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. -- Reinyday, 21:12, 8 September 2005 (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 Keep. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion, but I don't feel it is. It's quite possible to become a native speaker of Latin, if your parents speak it alot around you when you're learning to talk. Anyway, i want this kept, but, it appears some people don't. -- Phroziac ( talk) 20:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Reject debate. The CfD on this was closed today as no consensus. (By which I mean speedy keep.)- Splash 20:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- I removed the cfd tag from the category. Remoninating this 5 hours after the last cfd was closed is absurd. -- Kbdank71 20:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. Another silly 'vanity' category for "Wikipedians". To keep it is beyond absurd; it's ludicrous. How do you nitwits ever expect to be taken seriously with crap like this. Grow up or give it up. 12.73.198.68 00:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Comment - (I'm the one who CFDed this the first time, but I did not put it up for speedy.) By the rules for speedy deletion, if a category is empty for more than 24 hours, it is valid for speedy. That's all that is required. In general, when I choose to put empty categorys up for CFD instead of speedy, it's with the hope that some may get populated and thus become useful categories. It is not with the idea that some might stay around and continue to remain empty categories, wasting resourses for no purpose. The group of opera categories a week or so back is another example. They ended with no conscensous, but noone has populated them. So the sit in a limbo. Technically they (and this one) totally fit the requirements for speedy deletion, but because of a No Conscensous CFD, I can see it as not cool to toss them up for speedy. And so they sit in limbo. Noone is populating them, they are a waste, but they cannot easily be nominated for removal.
- On the subject of User la-N, I do see an additional factor. People are arguing whether it is possible in the world for someone to be a native speaker of Latin. And I can see the remote possibility of such. But this category is for Wikipedia useres who are native speakers of Latin. So, to have someone who fits this category, we not only need to have a native speaker exist in the world, they need to be a Wiki user. And noone has to date labeled themselves as such. So the category is empty, and I see no prospect of it every *not* being empty.
TexasAndroid
16:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Correcting myself. One person has now labeled themselves with this category. Whether the label is legitimate or not is another question, but the category is now in use. ^_^;; TexasAndroid 16:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Comment - I'm sorry about this. I was not aware that it was cfd'd 5 hours before i put it here. I assumed good faith and thought the speedy tag wasn't vandalism. -- Phroziac ( talk) 01:12, September 9, 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I find this category rather unhelpful, and I hope that I will not see it followed by Category:Mathematics in United States and the likes. There was some discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Category:Mathematics in_India, and even its creator agreed that the category is rather odd and the only reason for creating it was cleaning up Category:India. I would prefer this category to be deleted, or otherwise renamed to Category:Indian mathematics, as suggested in the Wikiproject Math discussion. Oleg Alexandrov 19:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete Oleg Alexandrov 19:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. Mathematics does not change in different countries. siafu 20:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. It would have been interesting if it referred to the history of mathematics in India, but the current name leads to the slippery slope of having "Mathematics in X" for any country X whatsoever, and I don't think that this would be useful, as mathematics is an international discipline. - Gauge 03:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. No potential. linas 23:05, 8 September 2005 (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 to Category:United States tourism by state. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This category overlooks the fact that states are not only found in the USA. Rename category:Tourism by U.S. state. CalJW 18:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- The other "...by US state" cats are all "United States Foo by state", so rename to
Category:United States tourism by state. -
Splash
18:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per Splash Hiding talk 20:12, 8 September 2005 (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/Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Like the two categories below this was created today. It is a dulpicate of the long established category:Municipalities in Mexico. It contained two articles, one of which had the word "Municipality" in its name, and I have moved them out. Categories in the English Wikipedia should be named in English unless there is no viable translation. Delete CalJW 18:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename. No argument. siafu 19:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. -- Reinyday, 21:22, 8 September 2005 (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 Rename. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Note: I am retyping this because it has disappeared.
Like the category below this was created today and is non-standard. It should be renamed category:Communications in Mexico which will tie up with the name of the lead article Communications in Mexico and fit naturally in category:Communications by country. It can then be used to cover things like the postal system. CalJW 18:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename. No argument. siafu 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename. -- Reinyday, 21:20, 8 September 2005 (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 Rename to Category:Entertainment in Mexico. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This was created 12 hours ago as a main tier category in the Mexico menu, but only contains one category. I am working on the national menus, and this is not one of the standard designations. category:Showbusiness does not exist and is not needed. In most cases things that might go in a showbusiness category are either in the national culture category, or in subcategories for specific forms of entertainment such as theatre or music. However category:Entertainment exists and there are a few sub-categories in category:Entertainment by country, though that is not really a standard choice either, so we can rename this category:Entertainment in Mexico. Otherwise, as a second choice, delete. CalJW 17:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. The only article in this category is a play, which is already catted under
Category:Mexican plays. An argument could be made to merge this category to
Category:Mexican theatre in
Category:Theatre by nationality, but, as mentioned, there's only the one article. This is definitely, however, not a candidate to be renamed to
Category:Entertainment in Mexico.
siafu
22:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- If it is renamed Entertainment in Mexico, I will put appropriate content in it, along the lines of
category:Entertainment in the United Kingdom.
CalJW
01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Why wait? If you want to populate such a category, just go and create it. This category has nothing to do with that. siafu 03:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- If it is renamed Entertainment in Mexico, I will put appropriate content in it, along the lines of
category:Entertainment in the United Kingdom.
CalJW
01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to Category:Entertainment in Mexico. -- Reinyday, 21:15, 8 September 2005 (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 No consensus (no change). ∞ Who ?¿? 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This empty orphaned category seems to duplicate Category:Weapons of Czechoslovakia which is neither empty nor orphaned. It has some history - hence why I did not look to speedy delete. Ian Cairns 12:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. Speedy, if possible, Category:Weapons by country uses "Weapons of Fooland". siafu 22:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Hmmm. Those two countries have been split a while ago now. Should their cats be split too, or is there a prevailing decision not to do so? - Splash 22:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)replyIn fact, we have Category:Czechoslovakia, Category:Czech Republic and Category:Slovakia. Something ought to be done, either as part of a country-related project or an overarching CfR/D/M. - Splash 22:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)reply
- My brain is in neutral. This cat, presumably, covers weaponry that was used during the period they were one state, and the others in the period since they have split. Obviously. Rename per nom. -~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 September 2005
- COMMENT Czech weapons pendantically would mean Weapons of the Czech Republich, whereas Czechoslovakian weapons would be what you're aiming at. 132.205.45.110 19:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename to Category:Weapons of the Czech Republich to remain standard. -- Reinyday, 21:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Er, that would be "Republic", as in Category:Weapons of the Czech Republic; there's no h at the end in English. -- Saforrest 00:00, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Reinyday, like I (eventually) said above, this isn't the intent of the category. We often have to have cats that deal with different periods in countries' histories when they had different names, governments and things. This category is not intended to cover only the Czech Republic, but the country-formerly-known-as Czechoslovakia. - Splash 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm confused. Is this category meant to be for Category:Weapons of the Czech Republic or for Category:Weapons of Czechoslovakia? I note Splash is voting Rename per nom, yet I can see no rename nominated by nominator. Hiding talk 21:51, 12 September 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose these be merged into a combined category Category:BBC Micro and Acorn Electron games, because the two categories are very nearly coextensive—almost all titles for one machine were converted for the other. Are there exceptions? Sure, but they were so rare as to be notable, thus this would be mentioned in the article. (The only examples I can find with their own WP article are two Teletext-based titles: Granny's Garden—probably because it was an education game, and schools always had BBCs—and The Hobbit (video game) (probably not enough memory).) Having two categories seems to be redundant, unnecessary and otiose repetition and duplication of the same information by putting it in more than one place. — Blotwell 11:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Since the categories don't currently contain all the same articles, I should add that I am asserting that with the two mentioned exceptions all the pages currently in either category belong in both—I've just checked online the ones I wasn't sure about. I'd go through now and add them if I weren't so lazy. — Blotwell 11:39, 7 September 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Category:Polish rivers rename to Category:Rivers of Poland
- Category:Russian rivers rename to Category:Rivers of Russia
- Category:German rivers rename to Category:Rivers of Germany
- Category:Austrian rivers rename to Category:Rivers of Austria
- Category:French rivers rename to Category:Rivers of France
All Rename to "Rivers of Foo" according to naming conventions. - Darwinek 11:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Queery. Does this mean we are now going to rename all the "Fooian Films" categories back to "Films of Foo", from which they were just changed about 2 months ago???
12.73.195.83
21:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- No, but naming conventions in geographical features are clear. - Darwinek 07:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename Bhoeble 21:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename as above Osomec 17:21, 11 September 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy Rename. Missing "the" word. Darwinek 10:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Agree... but should that "the" be capitalised?
Grutness...
wha?
01:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- I think that it shouldn't be capitalised. It's just Solomon Islands and that "the" is only a matter of grammar, instead of The Gambia. - Darwinek 05:30, 10 September 2005 (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 to Category:British organisations. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This category has an identity crisis. On the one hand it contains things that tie up with the definition of institution in the article which it is linked to: "Institutions are organizations, or mechanisms of social structure, governing the behavior of two or more individuals." On the other hand it contains a few things that are "British institutions" primarily in the sense of being seen as components of the British national identity, namely Category:British money, category:Imperial units, and some like things like Category:Oxbridge, Category:British monarchy, and category:BBC which arguably fall within the first meaning, but are probably included here mainly because of the second. I suggest that this should be renamed category:British organisations (not ...zations) as that is a less ambiguous term. It is already in category:Organizations by country because it is the closest British equivalent. The subcategories which would have to be moved out are adequately categorised elsewhere. I will deal with them if this goes through. CalJW 07:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Comment How will you "deal with them"? You leave me worrying that we're losing a perfectly reasonable category in
Category:British institutions in the second sense (needs a better name, obviously). —
Blotwell
11:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- The second sense is point of view. There is no need to "deal with them" because it has already been done. They are all in the appropriate categories already. Categories deal in absolutes, they are not suitable for expressing how "some people perceive such and such" because you have to make an absolute judgement about whether things are in or out. British iconography is best dealt with in an article, where the subtleties can be addressed.
CalJW
16:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Mmm, maybe you're right. Anyway, rename, though I think I'd prefer the -z- spelling which is equally good British and better for WP consistency. — Blotwell 22:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- The second sense is point of view. There is no need to "deal with them" because it has already been done. They are all in the appropriate categories already. Categories deal in absolutes, they are not suitable for expressing how "some people perceive such and such" because you have to make an absolute judgement about whether things are in or out. British iconography is best dealt with in an article, where the subtleties can be addressed.
CalJW
16:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Rename Bhoeble 21:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename to British organisations. That's a more useful category, and there are more things that could be added to it. Carina22 22:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename There are some other "Institutions" categories and they should probably all go. Osomec 17:22, 11 September 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This category is the result of an international semantic misunderstanding. It was created as Category:British cultural landmarks and intended to contain landmarks in the British meaning of the word (ie, big highly visible things) which are perceived, accurately or otherwise, as being particulary representative of Britain. After a previous debate, the worst possible option was chosen - it was renamed in American English. In British English, the new name simply does not match the purpose of the category - it says nothing about the purported signifiance of the contents, which was the only reason for creating it in the first place. On the other hand, the category is one of the subcategories of category:Landmarks by country, which is based on the much wider American English meaning of landmark. That contains category:Landmarks of the United States, which is the closest U.S. equivalent not of category:British cultural landmarks but of category:British visitor attractions. To demonstrate the difference, this category is more or less complete as it is, but both category:Landmarks of the United States and Category:British visitor attractions contain huge numbers of aricles.
This category is now pointless and confusing. All of its contents are adequately categorised elsewhere. Therefore delete. Second best option: revert to Category:British cultural landmarks - and write a better blurb this time. Keeping it under its present name is the worst possible option. CalJW 06:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Do not rename. I don't get the fuss over landmark as a Americanism/Britishism. The things in this cat at the moment are landmarks in the United Kingdom, plain and simple (and yes, I'm British). Are you suggesting that Stonehenge is not a landmark? Surely not. Harrods ouhgt probably to be removed, but that's just miscategorisation. We don't have to import the meaning of this category from others around it when its meaning is clear internally. -
Splash
13:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- It's meaning is not clear internally. In the UK "Landmark" is too vague a category name to be useful. We use the word a lot less than the Americans, but recently developers have taken to describing every new development as a "landmark development" as a marketing tool. Also, the blurb is inadequate. The name invites people to add things that are not in line with the origininal intention. We do not need this category. The UK menu has the most thorough categorisation of any country in the world including the United States without this. CalJW 16:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete This term is too informal. Big Ben is clearly a landmark, but in most cases it's a debatable designation. Bhoeble 21:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete There are already categories for all sorts of buildings in Britain - more of them even than in the United States. Carina22 22:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete as above. Osomec 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- This I feel will be back very shortly, as I vaguely remember the last Cfd, I think it should stay, but consensus is to delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:13, 17 September 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Yes, I know this just came up, but I missed it until a screed of "renaming per CFD"es scrolled across my watchlist. Take a look @ Category:Superheroes by team. Notice the odd one out? WHY did everyone miss this? - SoM 00:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Comment We were focusing on coming up with a name that ensured that they would be established as separate from other "Titans" while maintaining that they weren't all members of the Teen Titans. I recall someone saying that members sounding redundant. I'm not voting because I don't think it makes a difference either way. KramarDanIkabu 00:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename. We missed it because you didn't come here and set us straight. siafu 03:29, 7 September 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Empty, redundant with the more appropriately named Category:Weapons of Norway. siafu 22:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. (In case it's not obvious) siafu 23:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. -- Reinyday, 21:12, 8 September 2005 (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 Keep. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion, but I don't feel it is. It's quite possible to become a native speaker of Latin, if your parents speak it alot around you when you're learning to talk. Anyway, i want this kept, but, it appears some people don't. -- Phroziac ( talk) 20:12, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Reject debate. The CfD on this was closed today as no consensus. (By which I mean speedy keep.)- Splash 20:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- I removed the cfd tag from the category. Remoninating this 5 hours after the last cfd was closed is absurd. -- Kbdank71 20:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. Another silly 'vanity' category for "Wikipedians". To keep it is beyond absurd; it's ludicrous. How do you nitwits ever expect to be taken seriously with crap like this. Grow up or give it up. 12.73.198.68 00:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Comment - (I'm the one who CFDed this the first time, but I did not put it up for speedy.) By the rules for speedy deletion, if a category is empty for more than 24 hours, it is valid for speedy. That's all that is required. In general, when I choose to put empty categorys up for CFD instead of speedy, it's with the hope that some may get populated and thus become useful categories. It is not with the idea that some might stay around and continue to remain empty categories, wasting resourses for no purpose. The group of opera categories a week or so back is another example. They ended with no conscensous, but noone has populated them. So the sit in a limbo. Technically they (and this one) totally fit the requirements for speedy deletion, but because of a No Conscensous CFD, I can see it as not cool to toss them up for speedy. And so they sit in limbo. Noone is populating them, they are a waste, but they cannot easily be nominated for removal.
- On the subject of User la-N, I do see an additional factor. People are arguing whether it is possible in the world for someone to be a native speaker of Latin. And I can see the remote possibility of such. But this category is for Wikipedia useres who are native speakers of Latin. So, to have someone who fits this category, we not only need to have a native speaker exist in the world, they need to be a Wiki user. And noone has to date labeled themselves as such. So the category is empty, and I see no prospect of it every *not* being empty.
TexasAndroid
16:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Correcting myself. One person has now labeled themselves with this category. Whether the label is legitimate or not is another question, but the category is now in use. ^_^;; TexasAndroid 16:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Comment - I'm sorry about this. I was not aware that it was cfd'd 5 hours before i put it here. I assumed good faith and thought the speedy tag wasn't vandalism. -- Phroziac ( talk) 01:12, September 9, 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I find this category rather unhelpful, and I hope that I will not see it followed by Category:Mathematics in United States and the likes. There was some discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Category:Mathematics in_India, and even its creator agreed that the category is rather odd and the only reason for creating it was cleaning up Category:India. I would prefer this category to be deleted, or otherwise renamed to Category:Indian mathematics, as suggested in the Wikiproject Math discussion. Oleg Alexandrov 19:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete Oleg Alexandrov 19:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. Mathematics does not change in different countries. siafu 20:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. It would have been interesting if it referred to the history of mathematics in India, but the current name leads to the slippery slope of having "Mathematics in X" for any country X whatsoever, and I don't think that this would be useful, as mathematics is an international discipline. - Gauge 03:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. No potential. linas 23:05, 8 September 2005 (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 to Category:United States tourism by state. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This category overlooks the fact that states are not only found in the USA. Rename category:Tourism by U.S. state. CalJW 18:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- The other "...by US state" cats are all "United States Foo by state", so rename to
Category:United States tourism by state. -
Splash
18:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per Splash Hiding talk 20:12, 8 September 2005 (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/Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Like the two categories below this was created today. It is a dulpicate of the long established category:Municipalities in Mexico. It contained two articles, one of which had the word "Municipality" in its name, and I have moved them out. Categories in the English Wikipedia should be named in English unless there is no viable translation. Delete CalJW 18:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename. No argument. siafu 19:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. -- Reinyday, 21:22, 8 September 2005 (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 Rename. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Note: I am retyping this because it has disappeared.
Like the category below this was created today and is non-standard. It should be renamed category:Communications in Mexico which will tie up with the name of the lead article Communications in Mexico and fit naturally in category:Communications by country. It can then be used to cover things like the postal system. CalJW 18:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename. No argument. siafu 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename. -- Reinyday, 21:20, 8 September 2005 (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 Rename to Category:Entertainment in Mexico. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This was created 12 hours ago as a main tier category in the Mexico menu, but only contains one category. I am working on the national menus, and this is not one of the standard designations. category:Showbusiness does not exist and is not needed. In most cases things that might go in a showbusiness category are either in the national culture category, or in subcategories for specific forms of entertainment such as theatre or music. However category:Entertainment exists and there are a few sub-categories in category:Entertainment by country, though that is not really a standard choice either, so we can rename this category:Entertainment in Mexico. Otherwise, as a second choice, delete. CalJW 17:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. The only article in this category is a play, which is already catted under
Category:Mexican plays. An argument could be made to merge this category to
Category:Mexican theatre in
Category:Theatre by nationality, but, as mentioned, there's only the one article. This is definitely, however, not a candidate to be renamed to
Category:Entertainment in Mexico.
siafu
22:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- If it is renamed Entertainment in Mexico, I will put appropriate content in it, along the lines of
category:Entertainment in the United Kingdom.
CalJW
01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Why wait? If you want to populate such a category, just go and create it. This category has nothing to do with that. siafu 03:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- If it is renamed Entertainment in Mexico, I will put appropriate content in it, along the lines of
category:Entertainment in the United Kingdom.
CalJW
01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to Category:Entertainment in Mexico. -- Reinyday, 21:15, 8 September 2005 (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 No consensus (no change). ∞ Who ?¿? 19:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This empty orphaned category seems to duplicate Category:Weapons of Czechoslovakia which is neither empty nor orphaned. It has some history - hence why I did not look to speedy delete. Ian Cairns 12:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete. Speedy, if possible, Category:Weapons by country uses "Weapons of Fooland". siafu 22:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Hmmm. Those two countries have been split a while ago now. Should their cats be split too, or is there a prevailing decision not to do so? - Splash 22:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)replyIn fact, we have Category:Czechoslovakia, Category:Czech Republic and Category:Slovakia. Something ought to be done, either as part of a country-related project or an overarching CfR/D/M. - Splash 22:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)reply
- My brain is in neutral. This cat, presumably, covers weaponry that was used during the period they were one state, and the others in the period since they have split. Obviously. Rename per nom. -~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 September 2005
- COMMENT Czech weapons pendantically would mean Weapons of the Czech Republich, whereas Czechoslovakian weapons would be what you're aiming at. 132.205.45.110 19:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename to Category:Weapons of the Czech Republich to remain standard. -- Reinyday, 21:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Er, that would be "Republic", as in Category:Weapons of the Czech Republic; there's no h at the end in English. -- Saforrest 00:00, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Reinyday, like I (eventually) said above, this isn't the intent of the category. We often have to have cats that deal with different periods in countries' histories when they had different names, governments and things. This category is not intended to cover only the Czech Republic, but the country-formerly-known-as Czechoslovakia. - Splash 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm confused. Is this category meant to be for Category:Weapons of the Czech Republic or for Category:Weapons of Czechoslovakia? I note Splash is voting Rename per nom, yet I can see no rename nominated by nominator. Hiding talk 21:51, 12 September 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I propose these be merged into a combined category Category:BBC Micro and Acorn Electron games, because the two categories are very nearly coextensive—almost all titles for one machine were converted for the other. Are there exceptions? Sure, but they were so rare as to be notable, thus this would be mentioned in the article. (The only examples I can find with their own WP article are two Teletext-based titles: Granny's Garden—probably because it was an education game, and schools always had BBCs—and The Hobbit (video game) (probably not enough memory).) Having two categories seems to be redundant, unnecessary and otiose repetition and duplication of the same information by putting it in more than one place. — Blotwell 11:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Since the categories don't currently contain all the same articles, I should add that I am asserting that with the two mentioned exceptions all the pages currently in either category belong in both—I've just checked online the ones I wasn't sure about. I'd go through now and add them if I weren't so lazy. — Blotwell 11:39, 7 September 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Category:Polish rivers rename to Category:Rivers of Poland
- Category:Russian rivers rename to Category:Rivers of Russia
- Category:German rivers rename to Category:Rivers of Germany
- Category:Austrian rivers rename to Category:Rivers of Austria
- Category:French rivers rename to Category:Rivers of France
All Rename to "Rivers of Foo" according to naming conventions. - Darwinek 11:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Queery. Does this mean we are now going to rename all the "Fooian Films" categories back to "Films of Foo", from which they were just changed about 2 months ago???
12.73.195.83
21:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- No, but naming conventions in geographical features are clear. - Darwinek 07:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename Bhoeble 21:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename as above Osomec 17:21, 11 September 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Speedy Rename. Missing "the" word. Darwinek 10:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Agree... but should that "the" be capitalised?
Grutness...
wha?
01:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- I think that it shouldn't be capitalised. It's just Solomon Islands and that "the" is only a matter of grammar, instead of The Gambia. - Darwinek 05:30, 10 September 2005 (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 to Category:British organisations. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This category has an identity crisis. On the one hand it contains things that tie up with the definition of institution in the article which it is linked to: "Institutions are organizations, or mechanisms of social structure, governing the behavior of two or more individuals." On the other hand it contains a few things that are "British institutions" primarily in the sense of being seen as components of the British national identity, namely Category:British money, category:Imperial units, and some like things like Category:Oxbridge, Category:British monarchy, and category:BBC which arguably fall within the first meaning, but are probably included here mainly because of the second. I suggest that this should be renamed category:British organisations (not ...zations) as that is a less ambiguous term. It is already in category:Organizations by country because it is the closest British equivalent. The subcategories which would have to be moved out are adequately categorised elsewhere. I will deal with them if this goes through. CalJW 07:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Comment How will you "deal with them"? You leave me worrying that we're losing a perfectly reasonable category in
Category:British institutions in the second sense (needs a better name, obviously). —
Blotwell
11:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- The second sense is point of view. There is no need to "deal with them" because it has already been done. They are all in the appropriate categories already. Categories deal in absolutes, they are not suitable for expressing how "some people perceive such and such" because you have to make an absolute judgement about whether things are in or out. British iconography is best dealt with in an article, where the subtleties can be addressed.
CalJW
16:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Mmm, maybe you're right. Anyway, rename, though I think I'd prefer the -z- spelling which is equally good British and better for WP consistency. — Blotwell 22:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- The second sense is point of view. There is no need to "deal with them" because it has already been done. They are all in the appropriate categories already. Categories deal in absolutes, they are not suitable for expressing how "some people perceive such and such" because you have to make an absolute judgement about whether things are in or out. British iconography is best dealt with in an article, where the subtleties can be addressed.
CalJW
16:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- Rename Bhoeble 21:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename to British organisations. That's a more useful category, and there are more things that could be added to it. Carina22 22:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename There are some other "Institutions" categories and they should probably all go. Osomec 17:22, 11 September 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This category is the result of an international semantic misunderstanding. It was created as Category:British cultural landmarks and intended to contain landmarks in the British meaning of the word (ie, big highly visible things) which are perceived, accurately or otherwise, as being particulary representative of Britain. After a previous debate, the worst possible option was chosen - it was renamed in American English. In British English, the new name simply does not match the purpose of the category - it says nothing about the purported signifiance of the contents, which was the only reason for creating it in the first place. On the other hand, the category is one of the subcategories of category:Landmarks by country, which is based on the much wider American English meaning of landmark. That contains category:Landmarks of the United States, which is the closest U.S. equivalent not of category:British cultural landmarks but of category:British visitor attractions. To demonstrate the difference, this category is more or less complete as it is, but both category:Landmarks of the United States and Category:British visitor attractions contain huge numbers of aricles.
This category is now pointless and confusing. All of its contents are adequately categorised elsewhere. Therefore delete. Second best option: revert to Category:British cultural landmarks - and write a better blurb this time. Keeping it under its present name is the worst possible option. CalJW 06:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Do not rename. I don't get the fuss over landmark as a Americanism/Britishism. The things in this cat at the moment are landmarks in the United Kingdom, plain and simple (and yes, I'm British). Are you suggesting that Stonehenge is not a landmark? Surely not. Harrods ouhgt probably to be removed, but that's just miscategorisation. We don't have to import the meaning of this category from others around it when its meaning is clear internally. -
Splash
13:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
- It's meaning is not clear internally. In the UK "Landmark" is too vague a category name to be useful. We use the word a lot less than the Americans, but recently developers have taken to describing every new development as a "landmark development" as a marketing tool. Also, the blurb is inadequate. The name invites people to add things that are not in line with the origininal intention. We do not need this category. The UK menu has the most thorough categorisation of any country in the world including the United States without this. CalJW 16:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete This term is too informal. Big Ben is clearly a landmark, but in most cases it's a debatable designation. Bhoeble 21:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete There are already categories for all sorts of buildings in Britain - more of them even than in the United States. Carina22 22:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Delete as above. Osomec 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- This I feel will be back very shortly, as I vaguely remember the last Cfd, I think it should stay, but consensus is to delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:13, 17 September 2005 (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. ∞ Who ?¿? 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Yes, I know this just came up, but I missed it until a screed of "renaming per CFD"es scrolled across my watchlist. Take a look @ Category:Superheroes by team. Notice the odd one out? WHY did everyone miss this? - SoM 00:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Comment We were focusing on coming up with a name that ensured that they would be established as separate from other "Titans" while maintaining that they weren't all members of the Teen Titans. I recall someone saying that members sounding redundant. I'm not voting because I don't think it makes a difference either way. KramarDanIkabu 00:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
- Rename. We missed it because you didn't come here and set us straight. siafu 03:29, 7 September 2005 (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.