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 -- Kbdank71 13:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

This category (created (July 11) and filled by one person) is quite vague, referring to "reverence of underground scene of some kind" as qualification. Pavel Vozenilek 22:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. POV and unverifiable classification. I'm a bloody counterculture icon, dammit. Postdlf 22:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Arbitrary. - SimonP 23:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Highly subjective. -- Polynova 03:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — being so woolly it extracts nothing of encyclopedic note. - Splash 17:12, 22 July 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 -- Kbdank71 13:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

This should be deleted and its contents merged back into Category:U.S. Army officers. I could be wrong, but I think this is unnecessary subcategorization. Presently we have Category:U.S. Army soldiers for enlisted men and women and Category:U.S. Army officers, which is only further divided by Category:U.S. Army generals. The rank of general sits far apart from the other officer ranks in terms of the public's perception of its notability. However, someone who isn't actually in the Army or a military historian likely isn't going to know or care much whether someone was a colonel, captain, or major, so it doesn't make much sense to classify them that way. It will only unnecessarily hinder navigation. Or maybe we want this level of specificity in this area? What's the benefit? Postdlf 22:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge - The problem is, most Colonels have been Majors, even Captains, Lieutenants, NCOs, enlisted men - and some go on to be Generals. Even distinguishing between enlisted men and officers lays groundwork for unnecessary duplication; to be more specific about ranks will simply flood the place with multiple listings in a relatively confined occupational category - U.S. Army Personnel.
• Merge back and delete. Listifying may be useful if people want ranks separated. R adiant _>|< 08:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge back into Category:U.S. Army officers. -- Kbdank71 13:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge into three new subcategories: U.S. Army general officers (generals), U.S. Army field officers (majors, colonels), U.S. Army company-grade officers (captains, lieutenants, and the now obsolete ensign, subaltern and cornet). The officer in question should be categorized by the highest rank held, including brevetcies. -- Jpbrenna 18:36, 27 July 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 no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

This category is highly subjective and not NPOV. -- Polynova 21:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree, delete. Pavel Vozenilek 22:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I'll erase the NPOV stuff. That was added after I created the category, and I don't like it either. -- Zpb52 05:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The term itself is POV, not just the descriptive text. Postdlf 05:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

The term is not POV. That's what they are called and have been called since they were built. It's not a negative connotation, it's the accepted description. -- Zpb52 05:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Could you source that, and reference sources for the inclusion of each entry? Even if the concept/style itself merited an article (which is debatable), that still wouldn't establish that there was or could be any objective agreement as to which stadiums could be objectively classified as such. I also have a hard time believing that the application of "cookie cutter" to anything but baking equipment could not have negative connotations. Postdlf 05:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Going to that much trouble is not worth it. Negative connotation or not, it's the accepted description for them all, and I believe the info paragraph at the beginning cites what kinds of stadiums are included. Stadia built in the 1960s and 1970s that were designed for usage of multiple sports teams with similar field layouts. Just by looking at the stadia in question, it is obvious which ones they are. Just search on Google for "cookie cutter stadiums" and you'll see how accepted the term is. -- Zpb52 05:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Most of the use of the term I found online was either as a pejorative or with scare quotes. "Cookie cutter" implies that all the stadiums are identical when, in fact, they all have varying degrees of unique character. Also, while there were some stadiums generally agreed to qualify as "cookie cutter," (e.g. Shea Stadium) there were also a lot of borderline cases. I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of deciding what is or is not a cookie cutter stadium.-- Polynova 06:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

We don't have to "decide", the sources tell us which ones qualify. Hey, another epiphany at this late (or early) hour: Would it make sense to categorize all the ballparks, or maybe to provide an "example" list of them in the Stadiums writeup? Such as: Wooden ( Hilltop Park), Classic ( Yankee Stadium), Multipurpose ( Shea Stadium), Modern Classic ( Dodger Stadium), Retro ( Oriole Park at Camden Yards). Or does anybody other than baseball fanatics really care about this whole bloody subject anyway? Wahkeenah 07:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• What if we simply changed the title to Multipurpose Stadiums or Multipurpose Stadia. Would that be a good settlement. I believe in this category and I want it to survive because these stadia share many, many similarities and deserve to be grouped together on Wiki somehow. -- Zpb52 05:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

While this would be an improvement, I'm not sure this is a clearly definable category. Almost every stadium ever built is capable of multiple purposes and more than one sport. -- Polynova 06:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You've got a point. But you can distinguish between ballparks (such as Wrigley Field or Anaheim Stadium) in which football was added after the fact; or football stadiums (such as Pro Player Stadium) where baseball was added after the fact; and true multipurpose stadiums such as the Metrodome. However, this does open a can of worms. Some of the "classics" such as the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium were designed with baseball in mind, but featured football frequently and very early on. Yet few if any call them "cookie cutters" or "concrete donuts". Is a puzzlement! Wahkeenah 07:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Wow, a grand total of 5 users so far. Obviously a hot-button issue. >:) A category called "Multipurpose Stadiums" (let's try to avoid the excessively-bookish term "Stadia") which cites "also known derisively as 'cookie-cutters', 'concrete donuts' or, more politely, 'superstadiums'", could be sufficient. Maybe those slangy terms could be in the Baseball jargon page if they're not there already. And it's not difficult to objectively classify them. Just look at their aerial photos. I see that Zpb52, who originated the article, took out some of my comments. I put them back with a bit of balance, pointing out that they weren't much badmouthed initially. It was when purists started to look back at what they used to have (and forgot some of their shortcomings, like posts, cramped seats, bad sightlines and shortage of parking), that the criticisms began to roll in. Wahkeenah 06:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

"Multipurpose stadiums" would also broaden the category to include the Metrodome, Exhibition Stadium and a number of others. Then you could say "some of them", i.e. the ones that were circular and all seemed to look alike, "have been widely derided as 'cookie cutters' or 'concrete donuts'". I like the Hebner quote. Long before he said it, I was at a game in Cincinnati and was walking around the concourse. Looking toward the plate from left field, I had the sudden deja vu that I could just as well have been in St. Louis. They looked identical except for the color of the seats. Wahkeenah 06:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename as suggested. R adiant _>|< 08:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Multipurpose stadiums - Splash 22:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Oh, come on. Have you ever actually heard someone in the sports world say that word out loud? I doubt it. Wahkeenah 18:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

In fact, checking my dictionary, I have pretty well convinced myself that "stadia" as a plural of the type of structure called a "stadium" is incorrect usage. Ify you're referring to the measurement called a "stadium", then it would be correct. Wahkeenah 22:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I have just checked the OED Online [1] (needs a subscription), and it says "...an enclosed area for sporting events equipped with tiers of seats for spectators. (The pl. stadiums is usual in this sense.) ". So I stand corrected, and have amended my vote. - Splash 22:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Hmmm...First off, of course this is a keep, 'cookie cutter' refers to the style, not the puropse, of the stadium. Try this link for a nice description of the stadiums. But, I see how it can become quite arbitrary as to which stadiums qualify. I don't know if Shea Stadium or the SkyDome are cookie-cutters. I see them as transition stadiums, with cookie-cutter elements but leaning more towards the previous/subsequent style. And where is Metrodome and Olympic Stadium? And so forth...I'll take it to the discussion page. - maclean25 04:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Well, obviously "cookie cutter" refers to the style. No one is saying these facilities are for making cookies. The problem is that this is not an architectual term; it's a term used as a criticism of a perceived sameness and lack of originality of these buildings. The latter part of your comment gets to the other problem: there's no general agreement about what is and isn't a "cookie cutter stadium." -- Polynova 15:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the user Zpb52 (who originated the category) is currently un-marking some that I had marked as cookie cutters. So there is disagreement over what the term actually means... and I suspect that a very strict definition of the term will leave too few items on the list to make it really meaningful. I have come around to the notion that there should be a broader category "multi-purpose" stadiums, with a subcategory indicating that a certain type are called "cookie cutters" for various reasons. Wahkeenah 17:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

After giving it some thought to this I have come to believe that perhaps this would not make such a good category. This is because of the difficulty of labelling entire stadiums as 'cookie cutters'. I will retain my 'keep' though just to be difficult. Instead, I support the creation of an article on the subject. An article that discusses raison d'etre and architectural (and other) features of the cookie-cutter baseball stadiums. And what is with the 'POV' votes? The term may have been POV 20 years ago but today it is the most commonly used term for these stadiums (hence this debate, I guess). - maclean25 01:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. What's the point of categorizing it any further than "Stadiums"? -- Kbdank71 17:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Now, that's a dumb question. Look, the category was originally started to link together only the true "Cookie Cutter" stadiums. The ones that are rounded (or rounded square), enclosed, built in the late 1960s or early 1970s, and share many of the same design techniques: Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, Busch Stadium, Cinergy Field, Kingdome, Reliant Astrodome, Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, Three Rivers Stadium, and Veterans Stadium. All of these were built for the purpose of hosting an MLB & NFL team (with the exception of Busch Stadium, in which case the stadium was retrofitted during construction to allow the football Cardinals to play there) and to provide an adequate place to play at a low construction price. I would not classify Stade Olympique in this category because it was built with the primary purpose of hosting the 1976 Olympic Games and later was retrofitted for the Montreal Expos and Canadian Football League play. I also would not qualify Shea Stadium (built too early, and not fully enclosed), Metrodome (shares none of the same design techniques), or McAfee Coliseum (not fully enclosed). Rogers Centre was built nearly 20 years after the rest of these (not to mention its unique design), and Tropicana Field isn't even capable of hosting a football game. I'll leave Qualcomm Stadium in the category, although it was not originally enclosed. I hope this clears it up a bit. -- Zpb52 17:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope, doesn't clear it up a bit at all. In fact, I stopped reading after you called my question dumb. You might want to try reading WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA if you are truly interested in "clearing things up" for people. -- Kbdank71 18:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Shea was intended to be fully enclosed, they just never got around to doing it. If they had, and put the dome on it, thousands of drunken Mets fans would have perished when it collapsed. Meanwhile, I see no practical difference between Skydome and Kingdome other than Skydome's roof can open. And you have now pared the list down to 10 items, so I question the value of a separate category. It's also worth pointing out that "cookie cutter" is not a neutral term, it's a disparaging term. Maybe we need a similar term for all these "retro" ballparks that have popped up in the last dozen years or so and which also all look similar, only they are generally square instead of round. Maybe "retro chics"? "Camden Yardsticks?" "Rice Krispie Treats?" Wahkeenah 17:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

That's actually a good idea. I think we actually do need to categorize all these 1990s/2000s baseball stadiums built with "retro" in mind. Zpb52 18:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete POV. Don't replace. Most stadia have been used for more than one thing, so it isn't a helpful category under any name. Particularly inappropriate outside North America. CalJW 21:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rename, cookie cutter stadium is bias and POV, however changing it to Multipurpose Stadiums would erase that as it is an accepted NPOV term for a particular stadium type. Gateman1997 00:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • How about going with Multipurpose Stadiums and including a reference that "Some of them were criticized as 'cookie cutter stadiums', due to their circular nature and the claim (or conventional wisdom) that they all looked alike." Then explicitly list all 10 or so that Zpb52 has restricted the list to. Then all the bases (!) would be covered. Wahkeenah 00:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • What if we name it Shared MLB/NFL Stadiums in order to limit the category to the United States. Zpb52 00:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• I suppose that would be acceptable. However I don't see why we should limit the category. Afterall not all multipurpose stadiums are only MLB/NFL. For instance RFK is MLS/MLB, and it should be in the category. Gateman1997 03:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • RFK has hosted both MLB & NFL games. They didn't have to be there at the same time is what I'm saying, (although the Sens & the 'Skins were there at the same time in the 60s). Are there any other MLS/MLB stadiums? I can't think of any. Matter of fact, the only stadiums that remain that currently host both MLB & NFL games are: Metrodome, McAfee Coliseum, and Dolphins Stadium. But if you include all the stadiums that formerly hosted both MLB & NFL games, the list grows much thicker. Zpb52 06:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • You can make a distinction between arenas that were initially intended for just one purpose (such as Wrigley Field or Dolphins Stadium) and those that were intentionally designed for multi-purpose. In fact, Green Cathedrals tried to classify every ballpark ever built. They are many and varied: Racetrack, Wooden, Classic, Transitional, Olympic, Super-Stadium, etc. Wahkeenah 09:09, 26 July 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 -- Kbdank71 13:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Since we don't have any other categories about philology, this seems like overkill. Plus, there is only one German philologist represented. Eliot 19:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Move the person to Category:German philologists Pavel Vozenilek 22:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• As per Pavel, and Delete. R adiant _>|< 08:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete per above. - Splash 17:34, 22 July 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 -- Kbdank71 13:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty, cfd notice placed on July 14, 4 minutes after creation by User:PullUpYourSocks, reasoning it was replaced by Category:Lists of law schools. -- Kbdank71 13:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• I went ahead and speedy deleted it. It seemed like a pretty straightforward case, particularly since its creator and only contributor requested its deletion. Postdlf 22:23, 21 July 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 no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Using a pre-19th century rag-bag of pockets of land as the basis of a. category makes a POV claim. Even as a purely historical category, it represents far too fine a division of Category:History of Scotland. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Before I decide, what sort of POV claim does it make? And do we have cats for other historical counties? Not knowing any historical county names, I struggle to work this out for myself. - Splash 17:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Isn't there a Category:Ross and Cromarty? If there is, shouldn't the articles belong in there? (Mmm. seems there isn't. Surprising. Perhaps a rename is in order?) Grutness... wha? 05:08, 23 July 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 -- Kbdank71 13:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Reason: Orphan category, auto detected, only 1 article ( Barbara_Castle); actually this category was a dupe of a list MEPs_for_the_UK_1979-1984. Already replaced the cat reference in the article with a See Also reference to the list. (Sorry if I jumped the gun).

LiniShu 05:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Cumbersome and unnecessary; presumably there are many MEPs who span several of these five-year periods. Flowerparty 22:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. R adiant _>|< 08:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though I'm surprised we don't have the overarching Category:MEPs for the UK, or of any other country. Maybe this is better done with lists as we can indicate whether they lost/resiged/died/etc. - Splash 17:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

See Category:Members of the European Parliament from the United Kingdom and Category:European Parliament results although for the former, I am confused about whether it is intended to include only those who are currently serving terms, or all those who have ever served terms. For category or article names, I believe Members of the European Parliament spelled out is more correct than MEPs according to naming conventions, isn't it? LiniShu 20:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• If, after the 7 days, the consensus is Delete, am I, as the nominator, responsible for the Normal Closure procedure listed on Categories_for_deletion_policies? I will be away and not have access to Wikipedia again until August 1st, 2005. I'm not sure where I will find this discussion after it gets too old to be on this page. If anyone would be so kind, please drop me a note to explain, I'll look at it when I get back. Thanks! LiniShu 11:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • No, generally an admin closes the debates, at present usually User:Kbdank71). - Splash 17:18, 27 July 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 -- Kbdank71 13:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Reason: Orphan category, auto detected, only 1 article ( Barbara_Castle); actually this category was a dupe of a list MEPs_for_the_UK_1984-1989. Already replaced the cat reference in the article with a See Also reference to the list. (Similar to above, but different EP term.) LiniShu 05:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. R adiant _>|< 08:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons as the other one. - Splash 17:34, 22 July 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 -- Kbdank71 13:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Reason: I believe it's kinda redundant to have the Japanese title (and mispelled at that, the H shouldn't be capitalized) in the category's title, when this is the English Wikipedia. Just a minor nitpick. Change to Category:Resident Evil. - Jonny2x4 00:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• KEEP so that any information pertaining solely to Biohazard will also fit in the category (otherwise, it would be in the wrong category). Correct the miscapitalization, perhaps rename to Category:Resident Evil and Biohazard 132.205.44.43 19:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename, use the most common name for a cat, subcatting by BH and RE is not useful. R adiant _>|< 08:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT as far as I can see, there are no subcategories. This is a supercategory containing both BH and RE info, so renaming it to RE only would mean that you'd need to delete BH only info from the category. 132.205.44.43 14:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • REPLY With all due respect, you're reasoning is ridiculous. We're not talking about two different video game franchises here. Biohazard is simply Japanese name for Resident Evil, just like Rockman is a Japanese name for Mega Man or Akumajo Dracula is a Japanese name for Castlevania. Nothing more. If an article that applies only to a Japanese version or product, then it will be simply categorized under Resident Evil, the same way Dracula X is categorized as a Castlevania game. Jonny2x4 19:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nominator. The BH only stuff can stay since it is part of the RE series. A category for a particular title is too narrow in scope. - Splash 17:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Resident Evil/Biohazard series -- Genocide2st 16:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Resident Evil. No other work whose title has been changed in localization or translation is represented by categories named in this manner. - Sean Curtin 05:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Resident Evil. -- Kbdank71 13:11, 27 July 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 -- Kbdank71 13:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Largely unnecessary (most of the articles there were substubs that have been converted to redirects to Danny Phantom). More MascotGuy creations. tregoweth 22:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, well done on the merging. R adiant _>|< 08:33, July 22, 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.