From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 18

Category:Ash

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Ash ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_8#Category:Yes_.28band.29, it is not necessary to have categories for bands unless there is a significant amount of uneasy to find material from the band's article. The subcategories can be kept. However, if editors think that the Yes (band) category was a useful navigation hub, then I would support restoring that, and withdrawing this nomination. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - This is a useful navigational hub where you can find everything about the band in one place, that is the purpose of categorisation, both here and in general. Ease of access is the key. Ardfern ( talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
In a sense, I would agree. In fact, it might be worth restoring the category for Yes (band) for this purpose since I thought that dubious in the first place.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:01, 18 January 2008 (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:Fictional wetlands

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Category:Fictional locations. There was only one article left in the category as of this close. Kbdank71 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional wetlands ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in it, soon to be fewer. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 17:07, 18 January 2008 (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:Abandoned stations

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on jan 24. Kbdank71 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Abandoned stations to Category:Disused stations or Category:Defunct stations
Nominator's rationale: The term "abandoned" implies a total neglect. And while that may hold true for some stations (e.g. Lilbourne, which is pictured), it doesn't hold true for all. Key to this category is their status: the relevant railway companies have stopped using them as railway stations. For these reasons, I think the term "disused" covers this category much better than "abandoned". Another option would be "defunct", which appears to be used for most daughters of Category:Former buildings and structures by building type. A ecis Brievenbus 17:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Further comment from the nom: I have requested the input of the WikiProject Transport and the WikiProject Trains. A ecis Brievenbus 23:27, 18 January 2008 (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:Modern American semi-automatic pistols

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Modern American semi-automatic pistols to Category:American semi-automatic pistols
Nominator's rationale: There is no NPOV definition of a "modern" semi-automatic pistol. Mieciu K ( talk) 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • support rename, if it's not a duplicate cat. "modern" is somewhat problematic in firearms, since by definition I'd call all semi-automatic pistols 'modern' (originating in the modern era, IE 20th century or later) and to further complicate things, some very old gun designs (IE the Colt 1911) are still in production and some guns that are out-of-production are still widely circulated on the trader market. I would, however, support the split of the category into subcategories for guns still in production, and guns that have ceased production. Or failing that guns by design year decade. 69.210.45.157 ( talk) 11:24, 18 January 2008 (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:Goodnight Burbank

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Goodnight Burbank ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 ( talk) 09:12, 18 January 2008 (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:Disability-related rulings

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Disability-related rulings to Category:Disability case law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per standard naming conventions in Category:Case law by topic. Snocrates 08:27, 18 January 2008 (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:P2P charities

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:P2P charities to Category:Peer-to-peer charities
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Snocrates 08:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Expand abbreviation per nom but expressing no opinion on whether this category should exist. Earlier discussion suggested upmerging and that may be the ultimately preferred choice. -- Lquilter ( talk) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (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:Israeli mass murderers

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

The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Israeli mass murderers to Category:Israeli terrorists
Nominator's rationale: redundant, no? brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 18 January 2008 (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:Sydney highways

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Sydney highways to Category:Highways in Sydney
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform to current naming conventions as per other entries within Category:Australian highways. Longhair\ talk 03:12, 18 January 2008 (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:Tasmanian highways

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Tasmanian highways to Category:Highways in Tasmania
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform to current naming conventions as per other entries within Category:Australian highways. Longhair\ talk 03:11, 18 January 2008 (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:National Football League uniforms

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:National Football League uniforms ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper image gallery. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom - I can only find reference to images being uploaded to "articles" so unless someone can tell me otherwise these images shouldn't be on Category pages? It would be nice if this was explained at WP:IUP though. Unless I've missed it? Sting au Buzz Me... 00:53, 19 January 2008 (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

January 18

Category:Ash

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Ash ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_8#Category:Yes_.28band.29, it is not necessary to have categories for bands unless there is a significant amount of uneasy to find material from the band's article. The subcategories can be kept. However, if editors think that the Yes (band) category was a useful navigation hub, then I would support restoring that, and withdrawing this nomination. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - This is a useful navigational hub where you can find everything about the band in one place, that is the purpose of categorisation, both here and in general. Ease of access is the key. Ardfern ( talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
In a sense, I would agree. In fact, it might be worth restoring the category for Yes (band) for this purpose since I thought that dubious in the first place.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:01, 18 January 2008 (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:Fictional wetlands

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Category:Fictional locations. There was only one article left in the category as of this close. Kbdank71 15:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional wetlands ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in it, soon to be fewer. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 17:07, 18 January 2008 (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:Abandoned stations

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on jan 24. Kbdank71 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Abandoned stations to Category:Disused stations or Category:Defunct stations
Nominator's rationale: The term "abandoned" implies a total neglect. And while that may hold true for some stations (e.g. Lilbourne, which is pictured), it doesn't hold true for all. Key to this category is their status: the relevant railway companies have stopped using them as railway stations. For these reasons, I think the term "disused" covers this category much better than "abandoned". Another option would be "defunct", which appears to be used for most daughters of Category:Former buildings and structures by building type. A ecis Brievenbus 17:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Further comment from the nom: I have requested the input of the WikiProject Transport and the WikiProject Trains. A ecis Brievenbus 23:27, 18 January 2008 (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:Modern American semi-automatic pistols

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Modern American semi-automatic pistols to Category:American semi-automatic pistols
Nominator's rationale: There is no NPOV definition of a "modern" semi-automatic pistol. Mieciu K ( talk) 09:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • support rename, if it's not a duplicate cat. "modern" is somewhat problematic in firearms, since by definition I'd call all semi-automatic pistols 'modern' (originating in the modern era, IE 20th century or later) and to further complicate things, some very old gun designs (IE the Colt 1911) are still in production and some guns that are out-of-production are still widely circulated on the trader market. I would, however, support the split of the category into subcategories for guns still in production, and guns that have ceased production. Or failing that guns by design year decade. 69.210.45.157 ( talk) 11:24, 18 January 2008 (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:Goodnight Burbank

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Goodnight Burbank ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 ( talk) 09:12, 18 January 2008 (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:Disability-related rulings

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Disability-related rulings to Category:Disability case law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per standard naming conventions in Category:Case law by topic. Snocrates 08:27, 18 January 2008 (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:P2P charities

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:P2P charities to Category:Peer-to-peer charities
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Snocrates 08:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Expand abbreviation per nom but expressing no opinion on whether this category should exist. Earlier discussion suggested upmerging and that may be the ultimately preferred choice. -- Lquilter ( talk) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (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:Israeli mass murderers

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

The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Israeli mass murderers to Category:Israeli terrorists
Nominator's rationale: redundant, no? brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 18 January 2008 (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:Sydney highways

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Sydney highways to Category:Highways in Sydney
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform to current naming conventions as per other entries within Category:Australian highways. Longhair\ talk 03:12, 18 January 2008 (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:Tasmanian highways

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

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 15:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Tasmanian highways to Category:Highways in Tasmania
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform to current naming conventions as per other entries within Category:Australian highways. Longhair\ talk 03:11, 18 January 2008 (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:National Football League uniforms

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:National Football League uniforms ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper image gallery. Otto4711 ( talk) 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom - I can only find reference to images being uploaded to "articles" so unless someone can tell me otherwise these images shouldn't be on Category pages? It would be nice if this was explained at WP:IUP though. Unless I've missed it? Sting au Buzz Me... 00:53, 19 January 2008 (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