Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 6

< December 5	December 7 >

December 6[edit]

Category:Malt-O-Meal Company[edit]

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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category for one article. The article in question is already in the parent category, as well. Unlikely to be further articles to place in this category. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT#SMALL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 8 December 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:Places that Habonim Dror members work in[edit]

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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete categorizing cities by whether there's a branch of an organization present there is OCAT, what's next Category:Cities with McDonald's, Category:Places that National Rifle Association members work in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant overcategorization/trivial intersection. Maralia (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Maralia and Carlossuarez46. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:31, 8 December 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:Stalinism in Poland[edit]

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 debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Highly unclear delimitation of category boundaries, likely a POV category. 'Stalinism' is not an uncomplicated term, since it is not a self-conscious identity. If one were to name a specific period in Polish history, 'Stalinism' would be one of the worst choices ('socialist' would be the more correct, 'communist' would be acceptable for context but strictly encyclopediatically incorrect). Soman (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV category. M0RD00R (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems useful for the period 1944-1953. What's POVed about using a perfectly legitimate term like stalinism?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I think the nominator doesn't see the obvious historical bracketing for stalinism. This period (apart from commonly being called this very name in Polish history) is very distinctive from "socialist" or "communist" period (which, in my view, are much more vague terms). The nominator might not realize that Joseph Stalin was an icon of official cult in Poland '44-53. Referring to this cult and social conundrum may not be as arbitrary as the nominator suggests. Pundit|utter 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: there was no real bierutism.Xx236 (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no POV bias noted. Sting_au Talk 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename to Category:Poland under Stalinism, though PK I note they start the period in 1939, which seems correct. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The period '39-44 is an interesting one but significantly different from 44+ - in the first one, Soviets tried to destroy Polishness, in the second one, they decided to allow it, to a certain extent, including recognizing the existence of Polish state. I am not sure if the '39-44 period should use this or some other heading. Do note that currently Polish history is split around 1945 via History of Poland (1939-1945) and History of Poland (1945-1989), although the choice of 1944 or 1945 for the divide was always controversial.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just quoting the period as the category now defines it. The rename is a separate issue, which removes the objections of the nominator & most objectors here. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep rename as desired to emphasize this this category is about a period of time in Polish history. No POV found with historical fact. Hmains (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A perfectly legitimate term and category that ties together many phenomena related to a distinct period in Poland's history. Nihil novi (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, 'Stalinism' is not a coherent concept. A reading of the Stalinism article clarifies this issue. It is mainly used as a smear word for pov reasons, also sometimes to denote a political/ideological tendency (and users of this wording, like trotskyists, don't see 1956 as the watershed), sometimes as an oversimplified way to describe a system of government.

I also disapprove of trying to drive an iron wall between pre-1956 and post-1956 history in Poland. I think that in terms of categorizing a chapter in history for the History of Poland cats, there is already Category:History of Poland (1945–1989).

Moreover, how to deal with 'stalinism' pre 1945 and post 1956, if 'Stalinism' is to seen as a history chapter? What about Kazimierz Mijal? --Soman (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalinism is quite coherent in Poland, it's the most cruel period of direct occupation and stalisation/communisation, mass executions. Who cares about Kazimierz Mijal? Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The period of stalinism is quite notable and deserves its own subcategory (albeit maybe named a little differently) and we do need a subarticle on Stalinism in Poland. A look at headings at History of Poland (1945–1989) may be useful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as POV category per Soman. There might be a case for such a category to include articles specifically discussing the concept of Stalinism in Poland, but this category attaches the vague and POV label "Stalinism" to a whole period of Polish history, including articles such as German exodus from Eastern Europe which are only partially related to to communism. I think that there is probably scope for an encyclopedic article on Stalinism in Poland, but that would have to discuss the nuances of the different strands of communism in Poland, whereas this category simply attaches the label "Stalinism" without qualification or reference. Categories are crude tools offering only a binary choice between inclusion or exclusion, and are ill-suited to complex and controversial historic-political concepts such as "Stalinism". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep-vital category for initial period and events of Soviet occupation of Poland.--Molobo (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply If that is what it is intended to mean, then call it Category:Soviet occupation of Poland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would cover a much longer period; I have suggested Category:Poland under Stalinism above. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, there is nothing POV in it. This is a sad part of history of Poland, no reason to delete it. Tymek (talk) 20:40, 11 December 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:Nuclear-free[edit]

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 debate was merge Category:Nuclear-free to Category:Anti-nuclear movement. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Nuclear-free to Category:Anti-nuclear movement

Nominator's rationale: "Nuclear-free" is a bad name for a category (should be a noun) and I don't really see any reason the contents of the category should be seperate from the rather large and well-organized Anti-nuclear category tree. Recury (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and to avoid ambiguity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - it is simply not illustrative and I don't even understand why half of those things are in there -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:54, 12 December 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:People from Virginia by city[edit]

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 debate was rename Category:People from Virginia by city to Category:People by city in Virginia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People by city in Virginia, convention of Category:People by city in the United States by state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency. Snocrates 21:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 7 December 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.

Hockey alumni[edit]

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 debate was } merge/rename. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ontario Hockey League alumni to Category:Ontario Hockey League players

Suggest merging Category: Western Hockey League alumni to Category: Western Hockey League players

Suggest merging Category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League alumni to Category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League players

Suggest renaming Category:Alberta Junior Hockey League alumni to Category:Alberta Junior Hockey League players

Nominator's rationale: In a no-consensus nomination from last year, I asked for these categories to be standardized to the format of the thousand or more other minor-league player categories. No other Canadian minor hockey league, no other non-Canadian minor hockey league, and no other hockey league at any level and/or from any Canadian province uses the "alumni" wording of these categories and their dozens of subcategories. We don't use past/present categories for affiliations; you're either a member (at whatever time) or you're not. In the previous nomination, one of the arguments against was that "A comparable baseball league, the Category:New York - Penn League, does as well." Well, now it doesn't, as this new precedential nomination shows. So I'd like to see these categories and their subcategories brought into line. (And please, this is not a deletion vote. We categorize by minor league affiliation for sportspeople in all the big sports.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom and per the reasoning of my previous nomination of the New York-Penn League subcats. Otto4711 (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into the corresponding "players" categories. Wikipedia generally doesn't split current members of a category from past members; if it did, we'd spend half our time tracking the news and recategorizing articles every time someone retires, dies, gets kicked out of an organization, etc. Barno (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 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:Military personnel from Cincinnati[edit]

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 debate was merge per nom. Kbdank71 16:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:American military personnel and Category:People from Cincinnati as intersection by location, see also discussions of Occupations by city. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom; always Cincinnati.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always Cincinatti; there's also Category:Military figures from Pittsburgh, among others. --Paul A (talk) 03:14, 13 December 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:Diocese of Menevia[edit]

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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. 3-article category, with all articles adequately interlinked, and little prospect of expansion beyond a list of bishops (which already exists at Bishop of Menevia). The only other individual RC diocese in England&Wales with its own category is Category:Roman Catholic archdiocese of Cardiff, also nominated for removal below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 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:Roman Catholic archdiocese of Cardiff[edit]

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 debate was merge Category:Roman Catholic archdiocese of Cardiff to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Roman Catholic archdiocese of Cardiff to Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain

Nominator's rationale: Merge underpopulated category with little scope for expansion beyond articles on the archbishops, which are already sub-categorised in Category:Archbishops of Cardiff. Note that Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain contains no other sub-categories for modern dioceses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Saw this in the orphanage, found a parent, someone keeps blanking the page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 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:Flash-based players[edit]

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 debate was merge Category:Flash-based players to Category:Digital audio players. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Flash-based players to Category:Digital audio players using flash memory

Nominator's rationale: ~~Rename~~ for clarity and for consistency with parent category Category:Digital audio players. The current title could refer to football players or actors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Digital audio players, which type of memory used is not defining; don't they all use flash memory? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename per nom and carlosuarez. Acutally there are HDD based players, like several generations of iPods... 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Digital audio players. Are we going to also classify based on the type of external memory port or interface connection? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Carlossuarez46 (changing my !vote). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Carlossuarez46 (with a check for notability - many texts look like a deletable NN ad), use of flash memory is a technological detail. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge. The current name is ambiguous. Specifying music players would be far better. wintermute (talk) 17:30, 11 December 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:Hard drive based players[edit]

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 debate was merge Category:Hard drive based players to Category:Digital audio players. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hard drive based players to Category:Digital audio players with hard drives

Nominator's rationale: ~~Rename~~ for clarity and consistency with parent category Category:Digital audio players. The current title could refer to football players or actors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Digital audio players, what memory types or hardware pieces isn't defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per ~~either BHG or~~ CS46. I thought this was some sort of player in a video game when I saw it in the table of contents. --Lquilter (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename per above. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Digital audio players. Are we going to also classify devics based on the type of external memory port or interface connection? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Carlossuarez46 (changing my !vote). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 8 December 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:Nicene Creed[edit]

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 debate was merge Category:Nicene Creed to Category:Christian confessions, creeds and statements of faith. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Nicene Creed to Category:Christian confessions, creeds and statements of faith

Nominator's rationale: Merge due to underpopulation. Flex (talk/contribs) 09:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A more useful solution would be to Rename to something like Category:Early Christian creeds, adding Apostles Creed, Old Roman Symbol, Athanasian Creed, Chalcedonian Creed & maybe others. One or more Protestant sub-cats would also make more sense of this confusing bunch for most people. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; as for Protestent sub-cats, some Protestants may accept certain of these creeds. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very bold statement there Carlos! :) Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the good-ole RCC that publishes its beliefs, it's sometimes difficult to tell what some denominations actually purport to accept. No offense, just an observation and a wishy-washy one at that.... :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sub-cat for Protestant creeds would not of course imply that all Protestants accept them, or only accept ones in that cat. But if nobody accepts them, or ever did, it would be hard to see why they are notable. no? What we call here a "failed proposal". Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as overcategorization and as small cat (3 articles including a "Comparison of") with little hope of expansion. I doubt it's necessary to separate Catholic from Protestant from Orthodox sub-cats within the proposed target category, partly for the reason mentioned by Carlossuarez46. Barno (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry? Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you questioning my not-a-vote, or its reasoning, or the minor side reference to Carlossuarez46's "some ... may accept certain of these"? If it's the last one, as I suspect from your other posting, then you would have a much harder time demonstrating its falsity then he would demonstrating its truth. If you claimed in an article that no Protestants anywhere accept any of these pre-Reformation creeds, I would tag it "citation needed". There are many major and minor groups under the tag "Protestant", with diversity of beliefs, not one uniform catechism enforced by a global magisterium. If this wasn't your point, then you need to communicate more clearly. Barno (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh never mind. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 7 December 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:Independent Sockpuppet Investigations[edit]

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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant to SSP, which is there for a reason. Independent investigations may often be retaliator, unrelated, irrelevant, or in other ways not something that should be categorized. Furthermore, the creator of this category has been adding it to other peoples' pages, which is quite invasive and might not be wanted. GlassCobra 05:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eh, let's see here. Not sure about Fred Bauer, not sure about TigerShark, Jeske uses it, I'm confused here. Keep or delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodshoped35110s (talk • contribs) 05:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned, this category seems redundant to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. This category concerns me, because many people begin preliminary investigations in their subpages, just to see if there truly is a connection, and oftentimes, there may not be. Categorizing these pages borders on assuming bad faith, with what may otherwise be coincidental associations between editors, is a simple gathering of info, or as GC mentioned, something that is done out of retaliation towards someone. Additionally, if this category is being added to editor's subpages without discussing it with them first, that is possibly concerning. I have conducted preliminary grouping of editors when I felt there may be issues, or I have formatted a SSP/checkuser report in my subpage, prior to submission, but I sure would not want a category added to the page, as many times the issues die out, and do not warrant a report to SSP. WP:SSP is there for a reason, and provides a specific purpose, this category seems to in some ways, circumvent that process, and I think that it is unnecessary. If there is a genuine suspicion, they need to be added to WP:SSP after the evidence is gathered. Ariel♥Gold 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionI work SSP a lot and I never knew this existed. What is its purpose? i don't see it. Please explain. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if kept, it should be prepended with "Wikipedia" to ensure it does not look like an article category. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:41, 6 December 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:Fictional characters who have been genetically engineered[edit]

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 debate was rename to Category:Fictional genetically engineered characters. Kbdank71 16:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters who have been genetically engineered to ~~Category:Fictional characters that have been genetically engineered~~

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Grammatically, it should be "that" rather than "who" when referring to them as fictional. "That" is preferred for things. "Who" is preferred for people. But they're people, right? No. They're not. They're things people made up. When calling them fictional things, try to avoid saying "who". Doczilla (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Category:Fictional genetically engineered characters per Carlos (below). Doczilla (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that this is an English/US English spelling difference. As far as I was aware... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for grammar purposes, fictional people are still people and people are "who"s and not "that"s. Otto4711 (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional genetically engineered characters. No fictional character has been genetically engineered, there are fictional genetically engineered characters. Shorter and no grammar issue, too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Genetically engineered characters since we don't need "fictional" and "characters". --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that fictional characters matches the parent Category:Fictional characters by nature and the grandparent Category:Fictional characters. Otto4711 (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Carlos. We absolutely need the "Fictional" part to make it part of that tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should fix the tree to eliminate the redundancy. --Lquilter (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother. Most "Fictional (X)es" are plural nouns. It's only when you're characterizing by adjective that you need the word "characters".--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:06, 8 December 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:Former U.S. capitals[edit]

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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former U.S. capitals to Category:Former capitals of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Expand abbreviation and to comply with "Former capitals of Foo" format of other associated subcategories of Category:Former national capitals. –Snocrates 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Sting_au Talk 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to Delete - Leesburg, Virginia is honest enough to attribute the claim to "local tradition", & most other places are just included because various assemblies met there briefly, in the case of Princeton for a single day. I don't think that makes them the "capital city". Dubious pub quiz stuff. At the least rename to Category:Cities with a claim to be former capital of the United States. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Former national capitals of the United States to avoid having U.S. state capitals showing up in this category. Hmains (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's defines a national capital is de jure rather than de facto - otherwise the national capital of Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Norway, Denmark, Greece, Albania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and a bunch more from 1938, 1939 or 1940 to 1944 or 1945 was London or Moscow. And didn't King Charles hover about Oxford during his civil war making that Britain's capital by the same logic? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did, although Parliament stayed in London, but several medieval parliaments were held in other towns, which is the equivalent to the argument here. Washington DC is no doubt legally established as the US capital city by some Act - I don't think any of these can claim the same. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what does de jure versus de facto capital have to do with anything at all with this category? No such distinction is made in the category's name or inclusion criteria. It seems that off-the-wall arguments are just made to keep the deletion activity rolling along. Hmains (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Washington slept here" or "Congress met here" does not a capital make. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we can believe this article then they should be renamed to Category:Former capitals of the United States for the Continental Congress. Then to be complete we need to add Category:Former capitals of the United States for the Stamp Act Congress and Category:Former capitals of the United States under the Constitution. Or simply rename to one of the suggestions and source from List of capitals in the United States#United States of America. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename agree with nominator. --MUW Fan (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as an improvement. However, since this really covers multiple capitals and not simply those of the United States, splitting into additional categories would still be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would not a decent list be better though? I notice btw that Lancaster, Pennsylvania says it was "the capital of the American colonies" for a day in 1777 - hedging its bets nicely! Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 11 December 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.