From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 11

Categories:Players who have played for rival clubs

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Kbdank71 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I propose the deletion of the following categories

Category:Players who have played for Celtic and Rangers
Category:Players who have played for Everton and Liverpool
Category:Players who have played for Dundee and Dundee United
Category:Players who have played for Heart of Midlothian and Hibernian
Nominator's rationale: There was once an article about rivalries such as these which was deleted at AFD. A very similar category was deleted before as per this CFD. I think that if these rivalries are truly notable then they will have separate articles such as Second City Derby and accompanying lists of players. This is just category cruft. Woodym555 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
  • Keep for now - the anonymous nominator has not demonstrated a need to delete, & if he is unaware of Old Firm, Major football rivalries, Local derbies in the United Kingdom, Merseyside derby, & Edinburgh derby probably knows little about the subject. Johnbod 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • In response, my signature was included in the small tag. This could have been seen in the history of the page but i have moved it to my rationale for clarity. Along with another user, i maintain the Aston Villa F.C. articles and know about how rivalries can be quite fierce. (Bring on the Blues ;). If these players truly are notable for playing in these derbies, then they should be listed at those derby articles. Where does it end? For your information, this was discussed at the WT:WPF page beforehand. Thanks Woodym555 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per precedent; Woody is right, these players are best listed at the relevant derby article than as a category. For info, Woody is a well informed editor on football topics. Number 5 7 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - These categories should be kept as a list in the relevant derby articles. Daemonic Kangaroo 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the Everton/Liverpool, Dundee/United and Hearts/Hibs ones, but weak keep for the Celtic/Rangers one. The situation is a little different for these two clubs as the religious divide is more than nominal with this pairing, and for a while even the idea of a Catholic playing for Rangers or a protestant playing for Celtic was unthinkable, let alone the idea that one player could play for both teams. As such it has a higher notability than the other combinations. Grutness... wha? 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Each is a fairly unique category with a dozen or so players belonging to each and is of interest to warrant its inclusion alongside the derby page. If we're going to start deleting this, we might as well delete categories like 'West Ham defenders' and 'West Ham captains', which offer far less interesting information IMO. Fedgin | Talk 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is Commons:Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions in Wikimedia Commons, I think it's enough. OsamaK 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indirect OMM

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. They probably shouldn't have been emptied, but they don't seem to be problematic examples. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Indirect OMM
Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged into Category:Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine. Bronayur 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
NOTE Four pre-emptied categories in a row here! Johnbod 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Direct OMM

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Direct OMM
Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged into Category:Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine. Bronayur 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bodywork

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Bodywork
Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged into the article Massage. Bronayur 18:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Poems in Death of a Naturalist

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Poems in Death of a Naturalist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged into the article Death of a Naturalist. Calliopejen1 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Economic research institute

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename plural fix. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Economic research institute to Category:Economic research institutes
Nominator's rationale: Plural for categories related to multiple institutes, per similar categories for other types of research organisation. Bastin 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nom (as creator). Name yesterday simply created in error and different from the other cats, some of them even created by myself;) -- Tikiwont 16:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British fleets

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge both to Category:Fleets of the Royal Navy. Kbdank71 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:British fleets to Category:Royal Navy fleets
Nominator's rationale: Merge, The two categories are practically identical; once that's been done, the category should, according to WPMILHIST conventions, be renamed Fleets of the Royal Navy. Buckshot06 15:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
But how do I do that? Buckshot06 18:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Just vote here, the admins/bots do it. Johnbod 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
OK, I register again (if I need to), I would like that to happen. Buckshot06 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge to what, woodym? Johnbod 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge to Category:Fleets of the Royal Navy. Category:Fleets of the United Kingdom would be inaccurate because the UK has only existed for 300 years. The Navy has existed in various forms since about the year 1200. Certainly one fleet, the Channel Fleet has been around since 1600, 100 years before the Acts of Union 1707. Putting it in a category including the title United Kingdom would therefore be inaccurate. Similarly the Britain category is also inaccurate in that Great Britain is a fairly contentious title. Origianlly the Scots and the English had separate Navies, therfore Great Britain would have to include both Navies. Royal Navy can include the disclaimer at the top about various forms and the merging of the Scots Navy in 1707. Hope that clears up my reasoning. Thanks Woodym555 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
A name would have been fine. Johnbod 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Objection: is Britain/the UK/whatever really the only country with a Royal Fleet or a Royal Navy? Because if not, then the suggested names seem extremely ambiguous. Remember, this is an international encyclopedia, which merely happens to be written in English. I have this sneaking suspicion that Margrethe II just might have a fleet and navy of her own, as might some others. The fact that you island-dwellers can't figure out what to call your own country/ies is not our problem! :p  ;) p.s. "British" is widely used for categories and articles in Wikipedia, despite the fact that a few people (including some of my kinsmen) are disgruntled by it. Xtifr tälk 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply
There is no other Navy called The "Royal Navy" in English, and no other term is commonly used within naval circles for the British/United Kingdom/whatever Navy. See Royal Navy (disambiguation), Royal Australian Navy, Royal Canadian Navy (to 1968) etc. So there is no ambiguity here. Johnbod 14:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. I'll srike my objection for now, without prejudice to renew if I should happen to find evidence contradicting those claims (which I'm not particularly expecting to do). As long as we're consistent in our usage, I'm pretty happy. Xtifr tälk 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Liberated software

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Formerly proprietary software. Kbdank71 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Liberated software to Category:Free and open source software that was formerly proprietary
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Liberated" is a POV and florid term which doesn't adequately describe the topic. Chris Cunningham 13:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment It's succinct, but it's also POV (we allow "free software" because Stallman branded it as such, not because it's a normative description) and it isn't descriptive (unless you happen to have heard the FSF's rationale). I think "and open source" is necessary because of projects like Helix which have been "liberated" but aren't generally described as free software. Chris Cunningham 15:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The article you linked to contradicts your assertion. Helix is indeed free software according to the article, released under two FSF approved free software licences. (Some parts remained proprietary, but this is normal - the same was the case for OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, Java, Quake, and just about every other large software project that has been liberated.) -- Gronky 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename both to Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Arab Emirates. Kbdank71 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Golf courses in the United Arab Emirates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Golf clubs and courses in United Arab Emirates, convention of Category:Golf clubs and courses by country. -- Prove It (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge, then delete as nominated. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Swimming sonic characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters, not distinguishing. -- Prove It (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths from natural causes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Entries to be sorted (as far as possible) into more specific deaths by type subcats. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Deaths from natural causes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No one ever dies from natural causes, I suggest that the people in this category be included their respective death categories. Gareth E Kegg 10:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Why? Is this encyclopedic? For historical figures you would theoretically end up with a vast Category:Died from imbalance of the humours etc. Johnbod 16:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
I mean put into categories from Category:Deaths by type of illness. Gareth E Kegg 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Classic vehicles

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete as ill-defined and vague. The corresponding cat for imgs to be upmerged to Category:Automobile images. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 13:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Classic vehicles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Subcategory: Category:Classic vehicles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The term " classic car" has many meanings. Depending on who you talk to, it means (1) a car eligible for recognition by the Classic Car Club of America or similar organizations, (2) any car made before about 1980, per the automobile history eras, of which there are more specific eras, or (3) "a great old car". The first would be better served by a more specific title, such as "Cars recognized by the Classic Car Club of America", though I wouldn't support such a category per WP:OCAT. The second could potentially include all pre-1980s cars, which would be so large that navigation would be impossible. The third would obviously be inherently POV. This category is ambiguous, inherently subjective and serves no useful navigation purpose. The existing "automobiles by year" categories and the more specific automobile history era cats are far more useful. szyslak 09:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per extensive reasoning by nom, and also because I believe this is essentially a recreation. I'm reasonably sure we've deleted a classic cars category at least once already. The images sub-cat should probably be merged into another vehicle images category. Otto4711 14:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & Otto Johnbod 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because of inherent ambiguity in the name. Pavel Vozenilek 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - like the term supercar, classic is a term people will fight endlessly over what is and what isn't, therefore an easy target for edit wars. Willirennen 17:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator, of the three possible meanings:
    1. a car eligible for recognition by the Classic Car Club of America or similar organizations, - this is difficult because we'd have to make a list of organisations to trust - and that is in itself a POV decision. If we wanted to do this, we should add categories like: "Cars recognised as classics by the CCCA" - which would be crystal clear.
    2. any car made before about 1980, per the automobile history eras, of which there are more specific eras, - indeed, we should refine the category per automobile history eras and end up with 'antique cars' (>25yrs old - a legal definition in many countries (certainly across the EU, USA, Australia and Japan) to exempt cars from various taxes and to grandfather them in to modern roadworthiness laws), 'prewar' (cars made before 1948), etc. I'm not concerned about the size of the category - it's better that these things have some kind of categorization than none at all.
    3. a great old car - Definitely far too POV to be usable - except of course for the Mini - which is indisputably a classic :-)
It's a vague term and vague terms shouldn't be categories because admission or rejection from a category is a black and white thing...there is no way to express that admission is a grey area. If we put a car into the 'Classic' category then people will read "Wikipedia says this car is a classic - so it must be"...when in fact, it's maybe only just marginally a classic. SteveBaker 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Foreign language warning templates

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Foreign language warning templates to Category:Non-English user warning templates
Nominator's rationale: We seem to have two categories for warnings in languages other than English (they should all be translated to the language in question eventually - anyone who speaks Amharic, Danish, Farsi, Croatian, Lithuanian, Somali, Swedish, Turkish, or Vietnamese, your help is appreciated). I think "non-English" is a better name than "foreign", so I suggest the merger go in that direction. Picaroon (t) 01:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Burials at Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus to delete. Rename to less ambiguous Category:Burials at Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware, Ohio. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Burials at Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category not needed for non-notable cemetery. Notice that Oak Grove Cemetery and Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware do not exist, nor is it even listed at List of cemeteries. After Midnight 0001 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Burials in Ohio per Roundhouse0 (mildly preferred) or Rename per BHG. I don't think place of burial is generally a defining characteristic, though I realize some people are obsessed with the topic. I generally think this sort of thing is better handled with lists and/or broader categories, but if we are going to keep it, then a less misleading name is clearly called for. Xtifr tälk 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 11

Categories:Players who have played for rival clubs

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Kbdank71 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I propose the deletion of the following categories

Category:Players who have played for Celtic and Rangers
Category:Players who have played for Everton and Liverpool
Category:Players who have played for Dundee and Dundee United
Category:Players who have played for Heart of Midlothian and Hibernian
Nominator's rationale: There was once an article about rivalries such as these which was deleted at AFD. A very similar category was deleted before as per this CFD. I think that if these rivalries are truly notable then they will have separate articles such as Second City Derby and accompanying lists of players. This is just category cruft. Woodym555 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
  • Keep for now - the anonymous nominator has not demonstrated a need to delete, & if he is unaware of Old Firm, Major football rivalries, Local derbies in the United Kingdom, Merseyside derby, & Edinburgh derby probably knows little about the subject. Johnbod 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • In response, my signature was included in the small tag. This could have been seen in the history of the page but i have moved it to my rationale for clarity. Along with another user, i maintain the Aston Villa F.C. articles and know about how rivalries can be quite fierce. (Bring on the Blues ;). If these players truly are notable for playing in these derbies, then they should be listed at those derby articles. Where does it end? For your information, this was discussed at the WT:WPF page beforehand. Thanks Woodym555 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per precedent; Woody is right, these players are best listed at the relevant derby article than as a category. For info, Woody is a well informed editor on football topics. Number 5 7 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - These categories should be kept as a list in the relevant derby articles. Daemonic Kangaroo 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the Everton/Liverpool, Dundee/United and Hearts/Hibs ones, but weak keep for the Celtic/Rangers one. The situation is a little different for these two clubs as the religious divide is more than nominal with this pairing, and for a while even the idea of a Catholic playing for Rangers or a protestant playing for Celtic was unthinkable, let alone the idea that one player could play for both teams. As such it has a higher notability than the other combinations. Grutness... wha? 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Each is a fairly unique category with a dozen or so players belonging to each and is of interest to warrant its inclusion alongside the derby page. If we're going to start deleting this, we might as well delete categories like 'West Ham defenders' and 'West Ham captains', which offer far less interesting information IMO. Fedgin | Talk 07:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is Commons:Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions in Wikimedia Commons, I think it's enough. OsamaK 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indirect OMM

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. They probably shouldn't have been emptied, but they don't seem to be problematic examples. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Indirect OMM
Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged into Category:Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine. Bronayur 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
NOTE Four pre-emptied categories in a row here! Johnbod 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Direct OMM

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Direct OMM
Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged into Category:Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine. Bronayur 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bodywork

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Bodywork
Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged into the article Massage. Bronayur 18:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Poems in Death of a Naturalist

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, unused and now-empty cat. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Poems in Death of a Naturalist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: All the articles in this category were merged into the article Death of a Naturalist. Calliopejen1 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Economic research institute

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename plural fix. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Economic research institute to Category:Economic research institutes
Nominator's rationale: Plural for categories related to multiple institutes, per similar categories for other types of research organisation. Bastin 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nom (as creator). Name yesterday simply created in error and different from the other cats, some of them even created by myself;) -- Tikiwont 16:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British fleets

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge both to Category:Fleets of the Royal Navy. Kbdank71 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:British fleets to Category:Royal Navy fleets
Nominator's rationale: Merge, The two categories are practically identical; once that's been done, the category should, according to WPMILHIST conventions, be renamed Fleets of the Royal Navy. Buckshot06 15:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
But how do I do that? Buckshot06 18:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Just vote here, the admins/bots do it. Johnbod 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
OK, I register again (if I need to), I would like that to happen. Buckshot06 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge to what, woodym? Johnbod 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge to Category:Fleets of the Royal Navy. Category:Fleets of the United Kingdom would be inaccurate because the UK has only existed for 300 years. The Navy has existed in various forms since about the year 1200. Certainly one fleet, the Channel Fleet has been around since 1600, 100 years before the Acts of Union 1707. Putting it in a category including the title United Kingdom would therefore be inaccurate. Similarly the Britain category is also inaccurate in that Great Britain is a fairly contentious title. Origianlly the Scots and the English had separate Navies, therfore Great Britain would have to include both Navies. Royal Navy can include the disclaimer at the top about various forms and the merging of the Scots Navy in 1707. Hope that clears up my reasoning. Thanks Woodym555 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
A name would have been fine. Johnbod 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Objection: is Britain/the UK/whatever really the only country with a Royal Fleet or a Royal Navy? Because if not, then the suggested names seem extremely ambiguous. Remember, this is an international encyclopedia, which merely happens to be written in English. I have this sneaking suspicion that Margrethe II just might have a fleet and navy of her own, as might some others. The fact that you island-dwellers can't figure out what to call your own country/ies is not our problem! :p  ;) p.s. "British" is widely used for categories and articles in Wikipedia, despite the fact that a few people (including some of my kinsmen) are disgruntled by it. Xtifr tälk 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply
There is no other Navy called The "Royal Navy" in English, and no other term is commonly used within naval circles for the British/United Kingdom/whatever Navy. See Royal Navy (disambiguation), Royal Australian Navy, Royal Canadian Navy (to 1968) etc. So there is no ambiguity here. Johnbod 14:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. I'll srike my objection for now, without prejudice to renew if I should happen to find evidence contradicting those claims (which I'm not particularly expecting to do). As long as we're consistent in our usage, I'm pretty happy. Xtifr tälk 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Liberated software

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Formerly proprietary software. Kbdank71 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Liberated software to Category:Free and open source software that was formerly proprietary
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Liberated" is a POV and florid term which doesn't adequately describe the topic. Chris Cunningham 13:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment It's succinct, but it's also POV (we allow "free software" because Stallman branded it as such, not because it's a normative description) and it isn't descriptive (unless you happen to have heard the FSF's rationale). I think "and open source" is necessary because of projects like Helix which have been "liberated" but aren't generally described as free software. Chris Cunningham 15:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The article you linked to contradicts your assertion. Helix is indeed free software according to the article, released under two FSF approved free software licences. (Some parts remained proprietary, but this is normal - the same was the case for OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, Java, Quake, and just about every other large software project that has been liberated.) -- Gronky 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename both to Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Arab Emirates. Kbdank71 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Golf courses in the United Arab Emirates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Golf clubs and courses in United Arab Emirates, convention of Category:Golf clubs and courses by country. -- Prove It (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge, then delete as nominated. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Swimming sonic characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters, not distinguishing. -- Prove It (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths from natural causes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Entries to be sorted (as far as possible) into more specific deaths by type subcats. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Deaths from natural causes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No one ever dies from natural causes, I suggest that the people in this category be included their respective death categories. Gareth E Kegg 10:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Why? Is this encyclopedic? For historical figures you would theoretically end up with a vast Category:Died from imbalance of the humours etc. Johnbod 16:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
I mean put into categories from Category:Deaths by type of illness. Gareth E Kegg 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Classic vehicles

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete as ill-defined and vague. The corresponding cat for imgs to be upmerged to Category:Automobile images. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 13:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Classic vehicles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Subcategory: Category:Classic vehicles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete The term " classic car" has many meanings. Depending on who you talk to, it means (1) a car eligible for recognition by the Classic Car Club of America or similar organizations, (2) any car made before about 1980, per the automobile history eras, of which there are more specific eras, or (3) "a great old car". The first would be better served by a more specific title, such as "Cars recognized by the Classic Car Club of America", though I wouldn't support such a category per WP:OCAT. The second could potentially include all pre-1980s cars, which would be so large that navigation would be impossible. The third would obviously be inherently POV. This category is ambiguous, inherently subjective and serves no useful navigation purpose. The existing "automobiles by year" categories and the more specific automobile history era cats are far more useful. szyslak 09:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per extensive reasoning by nom, and also because I believe this is essentially a recreation. I'm reasonably sure we've deleted a classic cars category at least once already. The images sub-cat should probably be merged into another vehicle images category. Otto4711 14:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & Otto Johnbod 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because of inherent ambiguity in the name. Pavel Vozenilek 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - like the term supercar, classic is a term people will fight endlessly over what is and what isn't, therefore an easy target for edit wars. Willirennen 17:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator, of the three possible meanings:
    1. a car eligible for recognition by the Classic Car Club of America or similar organizations, - this is difficult because we'd have to make a list of organisations to trust - and that is in itself a POV decision. If we wanted to do this, we should add categories like: "Cars recognised as classics by the CCCA" - which would be crystal clear.
    2. any car made before about 1980, per the automobile history eras, of which there are more specific eras, - indeed, we should refine the category per automobile history eras and end up with 'antique cars' (>25yrs old - a legal definition in many countries (certainly across the EU, USA, Australia and Japan) to exempt cars from various taxes and to grandfather them in to modern roadworthiness laws), 'prewar' (cars made before 1948), etc. I'm not concerned about the size of the category - it's better that these things have some kind of categorization than none at all.
    3. a great old car - Definitely far too POV to be usable - except of course for the Mini - which is indisputably a classic :-)
It's a vague term and vague terms shouldn't be categories because admission or rejection from a category is a black and white thing...there is no way to express that admission is a grey area. If we put a car into the 'Classic' category then people will read "Wikipedia says this car is a classic - so it must be"...when in fact, it's maybe only just marginally a classic. SteveBaker 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Foreign language warning templates

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Foreign language warning templates to Category:Non-English user warning templates
Nominator's rationale: We seem to have two categories for warnings in languages other than English (they should all be translated to the language in question eventually - anyone who speaks Amharic, Danish, Farsi, Croatian, Lithuanian, Somali, Swedish, Turkish, or Vietnamese, your help is appreciated). I think "non-English" is a better name than "foreign", so I suggest the merger go in that direction. Picaroon (t) 01:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Burials at Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus to delete. Rename to less ambiguous Category:Burials at Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware, Ohio. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Burials at Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category not needed for non-notable cemetery. Notice that Oak Grove Cemetery and Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware do not exist, nor is it even listed at List of cemeteries. After Midnight 0001 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Burials in Ohio per Roundhouse0 (mildly preferred) or Rename per BHG. I don't think place of burial is generally a defining characteristic, though I realize some people are obsessed with the topic. I generally think this sort of thing is better handled with lists and/or broader categories, but if we are going to keep it, then a less misleading name is clearly called for. Xtifr tälk 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.



Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook