Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 17 June 19 >

June 18[edit]

Category:People from King County, Washington[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. --Xdamrtalk 14:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from King County, Washington to Category:People from Seattle
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Seattle itself is in King County so it just seems awkward. I know most Seattlites live in the suburbs of King County but it's not like King is as special as Orange County, CA. to have a people category of its own. eLLe.Le 23:36, 18 June 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:Homophobic organizations[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. Compelling OR/POV concerns have not been satisfactorily addressed by 'Keep' arguments. Furthermore, we do not categorise by opinion. --Xdamrtalk 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homophobic organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category itself is pejorative and violates WP:NPOV. The organizations may oppose homosexuality but the term homophobia seems inappropriate. JodyB talk 18:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename; however, I would perfer a merge in lieu of a delete. — From the Homophobia article: Homophobia is the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[3] It can also mean hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.[4] — This category was made as a sub category of Category:Homophobia, which the organizations were previously listed under. The term homophobia is a valid term used in the dictionary, used in scientific reports, and used in the news media; it is not a violation of WP:NPOV and it is not "inappropriate." To claim a common word used to describe an organization is inappropriate is not following NPOV because it is denouncing the word just because it remotely sounds negative. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 18:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'd argue the WBC is the only organization listed whose primary and best-known purpose is to spread hatred of homosexuality, but it won't be long before St. Patrick's Day parade organizers, Islamic charities, the Boy Scouts of America, etc. get jumped in as well. We do not have Category:Racist organizations, Category:Misogynistic organizations, Category:Antisemitic organizations, et al for similar reasons.-choster 20:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "spread hatred of homosexuality," but homophobic does not have to be about spreading hate (like hate groups do). All the organizations listed in this category have "disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexual people," or advocate "discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals," which are definitions of homophobic, according to the dictionary. I see your point regarding not having other similar categories though. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 23:44, 18 June 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:Homophobia[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 --Kbdank71 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category seems inherently POV. The term itself is perjorative. It violates NPOV JodyB talk 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as Category:Racism and Category:Antisemitism are kept. Otto4711 18:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - for same reasons stated above (#Category:Homophobic organizations). —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 18:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; contributors sometimes abuse these and other categories for POV-pushing but that does not invalidate the classification of articles about the social phenomenon itself.-choster 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Otto4711 and Choster. To avoid POV problems, it should only be used for articles on the phenomenon of homophobia, not for biographical articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete POV attack category. Alex Middleton 23:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I don't see why we can't have biographical articles in there- the categories Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Antisemitism and Category:Racism all include biographical articles. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up per our guidelines. To place articles in this category, the subject has to be notably associated with the category to a defining degree, and we have to have sources to verify the association and notability. If it is controversial whether an article belongs in this category or not, then most likely it doesn't belong.-Andrew c 01:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above--SefringleTalk 04:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto & Choster. Carlossuarez46 05:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of these prejudice related categories become POV magnets or ways to libel people. I fought in favor of Category:Anti-Catholicism, but it does get enough reckless entries I have occasionally doubted its usefulness. I am not voting either way, but I am saying if it's kept please use it responsibly. Ideally I'd suggest that you don't use it on living people unless they self-identify as homophobic or as a scholar of homophobia.--T. Anthony 05:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like this category is being systematically misused in a biased politicised manner, and it could hardly be otherwise. Casperonline 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently POV. The definition of homophobia used by the gay lobby is extreme and intolerant. Abberley2 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no rule that the WP definition of homophobia conform to that used by the gay lobby, and thus no need to include extreme and intolerant cases.-choster 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Otto4711 -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you delete this category, all its entries may end up in the patent category, Category:Prejudices, which doesn't really work well for just one type of prejudice. Also keep per Otto4711, but to clarify it's use, either it should be renamed Category:Homophobic (the adjective form of homophobia used to describe the qualities of these characteristics - see Homophobia) to distinguish it from including items that could be placed in Category:Homophobe (the noun form of homophobia given as a title to individuals with "homophobic" characteristics - see Homophobia) or should include a clearer statement of use at the top of Category:Homophobia. Right now, with the category entitled Homophobia and the meaning of Homophobia including the noun form of homophobia given as a title to individuals with "homophobic" characteristics, it does not seem incorrect usage to add biographies of individuals with sourced "homophobic" characteristics. The present set up would seem to draw WP:BLP problems that could be avoided. The BLP problems in Category:Homophobia can be addressed as they come up, but a better approach would be to lessen the potential for these problems. Comment: Category:Homophobia probably should be located under Category:Sexual and gender prejudices, not under Category:Prejudices. Comment#2: Appropriate Wikipedia use of this category may be if a Wikipedia reliable source established that the entity in question in fact had irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals. If a Wikipedia reliable source or sources have an opinion that the entity question has an irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals, then such use of this category might raise concerns. Someone just needs to take the time to see how Category:Prejudices and its subcategories are properly used and provide a statement of use at the top of Category:Homophobia to keep things consistent. Comment #3: If you are looking for subcategories, try this for ideas. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep also individuals and organizations can be added and taken out as appropriate. Many groups and their founders/leaders are seen as intertwined. Jerry Falwell seems to be a good example of this. Suggest broaden the category definition if possible Benjiboi 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid category describing a particular form of prejudice -- can't actually think of an alternative term that doesn't have worse problems. However, category should be monitored to ensure articles aren't being added to it inappropriately -- as is also the case for other "prejudice" categories like those for anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, etc. --Yksin 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Otto4711. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was just looking at this CFD discussion, where one of the arguments made for deletion was 'If we don't have a category for Category:Homophobia, then this category is certainly blatantly off-limits'. Since we now do have a Category:Homophobia, I wonder if that means Category:Islamophobia should be brought back? I'm fairly neutral on whether or not these categories should actually exist - the phenomena themselves clearly exist, but on the other hand the categories can easily become filled with POV material (and thus, if kept, should be policed closely). All I'm saying is that we should be consistent. Terraxos 03:32, 25 June 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:Birds of the Samoan Islands[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 to Category:Birds of Samoa, per convention. Suggest renomination if editors wish to challenge existing Category:Birds by country structure. --Xdamrtalk 14:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this category is exactly the same as Category:Birds of Samoa. I don't know much about that area of the world but I am pretty sure that these categories are referring to the same place. Dixonsej 17:52 18 June 2007.

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:Withdrawn nominees to the United States Supreme Court[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 --Kbdank71 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and also, Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court

Deleted in february, but recently an "overturn and relist" was suggested on deletion review. This is precisely what lists are for. A list can give all nominees, with links, circumstances, and whether they made it, withdrew, were unsuccesful, or whatever. As categories, they are not nearly as useful; in fact they are similar to "people who started their own political party and got zero votes". >Radiant< 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and listify both - per the excellent reasoning of the nom. Otto4711 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify - The circumstances under which nominees fail to reach the Supreme Court vary from person to person. For example, Harriet Myers's situation was very different from Robert Bork's. Having categories for all of these different scenarios seems unwieldy. The list seems like a better option. Dr. Submillimeter 15:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:CLS, categories and lists are not in competition. Categories provide superior exploratory browsing that just isn't possible with lists. For example, the unsuccessful category is a prominent subcategory of Category:Supreme Court of the United States (the other I just added). But more importantly, compare how easy it is to find withdrawn all withdrawn nominees in the category to how difficult it is to pick them out of this list of unsuccessful nominations. True, we could create separate lists for withdrawn and unsuccessful nominations, but having this separation in categories is less obnoxious than having two separate lists for such closely related groups of people. The comparison to political parties who get no votes doesn't hold, because they get little media attention. Two years ago, Harriet Miers was a high-profile news item for months in a way a minor political party could never be. Other failed nominees enjoy similar status. ("Bork" is now a verb; many educated Americans remember that Ginsberg failed because he smoked pot with his students, etc.)--Chaser - T 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Several people have commented that WP:CLS needs to be updated, as it does not appear to match the consensus at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I take that back; WP:CLS looks up-to-date. However, the annotations needed to discuss the individual people and the references needed for this information would imply that lists would be better (as suggested by WP:CLS). Dr. Submillimeter 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a matter of one being better. Both have advantages, and we can and should have both in this case.--Chaser - T 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both lists are important and encyclopedic. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think deletion of the lists is being discussed here, just a category. Is there a reason why the lists can not be in Category:Supreme Court of the United States? Vegaswikian 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he meant categories. There's only one lists, which is already categorized there, but subcategories are higher profile in that cat than the list, because there are more articles.--Chaser - T 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to my surprise (on first glance, I thought this would be a delete). This is not huge category, but the very fact that the article Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States is so detailed makes it less useful for finding individual entries; furthermore, being the subject of a failed supreme court nomination is a defining characteristic of the people involved, just as being a failed presidential candidate is a defining characteristic of people such as John Kerry, George McGovern and Bob Dole. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While being a failed supreme court nomination may be defining; how one got defeated seems more of a did he resign or was he pushed out sort of scenario; I guess from reading through the articles your nomination can fail any number of ways: withdrawal being only one (and whether the nominee withdrew or the President withdrew the nomination further splits hairs), others including getting voted down in the Senate floor, or just never getting out of committee, or even just being held up in limbo which apparently senators can hold nominations for long periods without being called to account for themselves. Perhaps Category:Unconfirmed nominees to the United States Supreme Court is the better formulation. Carlossuarez46 05:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chaser and BHG. The list is useful for some purposes, but it is arranged by President rather than by name of nominee, making it less easier to navigate than a category for the individual nominees. Both have their uses. I would also support a merger of the two categories to Dr S's suggestion or something similar. Bencherlite 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chaser and BHG. We do have Category:Presidents of the United States despite the List of Presidents of the United States, so obviously the existence of a list cannot alone preclude a category. Instead, categories and lists should coexist when they each perform separate functions. These categories perform the function of classifying the articles by a defining characteristic of its subjects' notability (perhaps the defining characteristic), and provide for direct navigation among subjects that share that defining characteristic—this isn't a trivial fact for any of them. The list cannot apply those functions to the articles, but obviously provides historical ordering and explanation that the category cannot, so both perform separate useful functions. However, I would also support the merger of the two per Dr. S., however, because I've never seen much utility in splitting out in the category structure why they were never confirmed. Postdlf 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chaser and Postdlf. --MZMcBride 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to say that this is a defining feature. Doczilla 08:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Likely to represent one of the highest and most defining points of the subjects' careers. Abberley2 01:23, 22 June 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:K Records[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 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:K Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - container category holding album and artist subcats. The subcats are housed in well-established category structures and housing them in a company-specific category with no other material is overcategorization. Otto4711 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Record label is notable but I think a list or article or series of articles might actually be more useful for folks looking for this information. I would expect to see some of the artists and/or albums categorized in different music genres but agree that current category far from ideal. Benjiboi 09:36, 23 June 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:UK Green politicians[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/merge as nominated, per parent cat --Kbdank71 13:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Green politicians to Category:Green Party politicians (UK)
Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with other sub-categories of Category:British politicians by party, which are of the format "Foo Party politicians (UK)". Adding the word party also helps to clarify that that the category is for politicians who are members of the Green Party (UK) and its successors, and not for politicians from other parties who identify as "green". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 18 June 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:Lusitanic[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 13:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lusitanic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Part of a project to create lusitanic categories and articles in analogy to hispanic. However, there is no Category:Hispanic either. The category has no 'parent' and contains after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro Lusitanic American only Lusitanic itself. Tikiwont 08:58, 18 June 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:The Four Seasons members[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 no consensus --Kbdank71 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:The Four Seasons members to Category:Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Redundant subcategory - virtually all current or former members of the group will not merit main articles on their own. Also nominating above for merging into the parent category as redundant as virtually all of the group's hit records art already there. Separating these from the parent category leaves only three or four articles, once duplication is removed.B.Wind 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per convention of Category:Musicians by band. Immediately after I put these articles into the members category, User:B.Wind reinserted the members into the main category, which is not what we do for band members. These should be removed from the main category.--Mike Selinker 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:B.Wind (that's me, folks) returned them to the original category as they were moved by someone else to populate a newly-created category. The new category was created after-the-fact. Please don't make it sound as if I were trying to depopulate an older category. The fact was the subcategory in question was created after Category:Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons, not the other way around. Secondly, the subcategory also ignores the concept that the histories of Frankie Valli and of The Four Seasons are, in fact, one and the same. B.Wind 01:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Mike is exactly correct. The current standard is to have separate member categories, album categories and song categories. It is the top level category (and suggested merge target) that should be deleted, if anything. Xtifr tälk 09:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a category that can only consist of seven articles (perhaps eight if one wishes to include Jerry Corbetta, who was with them for one tour) as only two performers in any of the post-1960s lineups seem even worthy of their own stand-alone articles (and neither of the two has an article at present and possibly in the near future). A category with only six articles (and is not expected to increase its membership) is a redundancy. B.Wind 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per convention. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these can all be navigated (or should all be navigated by links or a template) at the main article. Carlossuarez46 05:26, 19 June 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:The Four Seasons songs[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 --Kbdank71 13:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:The Four Seasons songs to Category:Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Redundant subcategory - virtually all of the group's hit records are already there. Removing articles into this and abovementioned "Members" category nearly vacates parent category. B.Wind 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per convention of Category:Songs by artist. I removed all the songs from the main category, and put them into the nominated category and Category:Frankie Valli songs, as appropriate.--Mike Selinker 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting that you'd mentioned Category:Frankie Valli songs as it is redundant as well (except of "My Mother's Eyes" in 1953 and his post-1975 solo records), all of Frankie Valli's "solo" hits and other commercial recordings with his name on them were with the Four Seasons or their predecessors, The Four Lovers). This includes "My Eyes Adored You", which was recorded by The Four Seasons as a Four Seasons song and was released as a Valli "solo" song only at the insistence of the owner of Private Stock Records. Second, as it stands, the category will not be growing as all the Four Seasons hits have articles (several as stubs) here already - unless there is a merger with the Frankie Valli "solo" hits category. It was subcategorizing for the sake of subcategorizing, rather than a useful move. B.Wind 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Mike is exactly correct. The current standard is to have separate member categories, album categories and song categories. It is the top level category (and suggested merge target) that should be deleted, if anything. Xtifr tälk 09:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my response below. The fact is that it ignores the fact that Frankie Valli is the Four Seasons, in terms of musical history. His "solo" career prior to 1975 consisted of Four Seasons recordings that were relabeled as "solo" records, often with the blessing of his partners. Are you also saying that the same should be done with The Four Lovers, The Wonder Who? and others - well, they're all the same assemblage. This is one case that the "standard" does not truly apply in light of all the convolutions... but it's still Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons. B.Wind 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per conventions of Category:Songs by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which precedent is similar to this? Which precedents are you going to cite has parallels to that of Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons (one act that in fact had chart records under no fewer than four names)? Which precedent do you have that parallels two "acts" with exactly the same personnel and differ only in marketing? "Keep for the sake of we're doing it this way because... well, because" is not a persuasive argument here. B.Wind 01:31, 21 June 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:Mack G albums[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 speedy delete. After Midnight 0001 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mack G albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Hoax, as are all articles created by this editor. Corvus cornix 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious hoax. Resolute 04:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, the articles have been speedied, so why can't the cat be speedied as well? -Andrew c 01:23, 19 June 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:Old Warminsters[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 redirect --Kbdank71 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Old Warminsters
Nominator's rationale: Delete - mis-named, Category:Old Verlucians serves the intended purpose. Xn4 02:20, 18 June 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:Socialist Labour Party (UK) members[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 --Kbdank71 13:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Socialist Labour Party (UK) members to Category:Category:Socialist Labour Party politicians (UK)
Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with format for other subcats of Category:British politicians by party, and because we do not categorise people merely by membership of a political party. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Category:Socialist Party of Great Britain members for smaller sects membership alone is significant - and esp. with sects given that they don't necessarilly achieve office membership might be the only notable aspect of the relationship.--Red Deathy 07:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - agree with Red Deathy, membership of a small political group is often notable. Warofdreams talk 16:54, 19 June 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:UK Social Democratic Party (SDP) politicians[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:Social Democratic Party politicians (UK) --Kbdank71 13:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Social Democratic Party (SDP) politicians to Category:Social Democratic Party (SDP) politicians (UK) Category:Social Democratic Party politicians (UK)
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to remove "UK" prefix and replace with a suffix as with other other subcats of Category:British politicians by party. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nomination amended after Xtifr's comment below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 18 June 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:UK RESPECT party politicians[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:Respect – The Unity Coalition politicians --Kbdank71 13:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK RESPECT party politicians to Category:RESPECT party politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to remove "UK" prefix as with other other subcats of Category:British politicians by party. Note that unlike the other subcats, no "(UK)" suffix is needed, since there appears to be no "Respect" parties in other countries. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 18 June 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:Murdered Russian royalty members[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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Murdered Russian royalty members to Category:Murdered Russian royalty
Nominator's rationale: Rename, The word "members" is superfluous, and is not to be found in Category:Russian royalty or the royalty categories for other countries. Brandon97 00:15, 18 June 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_18&oldid=1144515842"