Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 19

< September 18	September 20 >

September 19[edit]

Category:Australian nobility[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 upmerge. Kbdank71 14:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Australian nobility to Category:Nobility by nation

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, then delete: Firstly, apart from the occasional self-proclamations by eccentrics and taxation secessionists, there are no nobility titles in Australia. Secondly and a little absurdly, the category only contains the subcats Category:Fijian nobility and Category:Nobility of Hawaii. This recently created cat seems to be part of an attempt to subdivide Category:Nobility by nation by continental region, so presumably 'Oceania' (and not Australia) is meant in this case. As such, the category is both misnamed and unnecessary. I see no good reason to insert this category (even if more accurately named) into the structure, and propose to upmerge its two subcats to Category:Nobility by nation (where they were before) and then delete it. As an aside, the whole Category:Nobility subtree could do with a rethink, but this can wait for another time. cjllw ʘ TALK 00:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as superfluous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Delete per nom --SJK 08:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Nobility of Oceania. Given that Hawaii is not a nation (in most senses of the word), it cannot easily be upmerged. What's more, similar categories could someday be created for the Wallis and Futuna Islands (also not a nation), and the categories of Category:Māori monarchs, Category:Tongan chiefs, Category:Tongan royalty, and Category:Malietoa could also be included. Grutness...wha? 23:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Grutness, bearing in mind what Edward VII said to Kaiser Bill on the subject. Johnbod 02:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Attractions in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina[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 as specified in nomination, current convention. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Visitor attractions in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, convention of Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per convention . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination --Rtphokie 11:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Comic Book film series actors[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 and SALT. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Parent category for Category:Spider-Man film series actors and Category:Batman film series actors and as per those CfDs, Delete as performer by preformance and recreated deleted categories. J Greb 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt as recreation/disruption and sanction or at least sternly warn the editor who keeps recreating these categories. Otto4711 21:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, see also discussion of December 31st. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I get so tired of deleting all these recreations by all these Creepy Crawler/EJBanks/BatmanFan etc. sockpuppets. Why can't something be done about him? Wryspy 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SALT & Eject into space. Wryspy, because murder is a crime, and ignorance and assholery aren't. LOL. ThuranX 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Spider-Man film series actors[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 and SALT. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as performer by performance, overwhelming precedence, and as a recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt and if it's the same editor who keeps doing this, salt them too. Otto4711 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy & Salt as per precedent - J Greb 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt recreation. Wryspy 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block re-creation per nom and precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SALT & BURN. I've reported this as Creepy crawler YET again, but the Sock folks aren't at work this week. ThuranX 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Batman film series actors[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 and SALT for good measure. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Performer by performance, overcategorisation, delete per precedent. RobertG ♬ talk 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_15#Category:Spider-Man_Movie_Actors

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_17#Category:Batman_actors

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_15#Category:Batman_actors

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16#Category:Spider-Man_actors

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28#Category:Marvel_actors

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_31#Category:Actor.27s_who_portray_Comic_Book_characters

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_25#Category:Marvel_Comics_Film_actors

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Batman_actors

Delete per overwhelming precedent. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt and if it's the same editor who keeps doing this, salt them too. Otto4711 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy & Salt as per precedent - J Greb 20:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block re-creation per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy SALT until it's done writhing and foaming... ir is that just slugs? ThuranX 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt and block this idiot. Just seeing the names of these categories, I know they were created by Creepy Crawler/EJBanks/Batman fan sock #118. Wryspy 06:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People born in Ukraine[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 14:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's several problems with this. The first is that place of birth is just where the mother happened to be when her time came, so is often completely irrelevant. Accordingly we favor nationality, residency or ethnicity over place of birth. The second is that what is now Ukraine was recently part of the Ukrainian SSR or the Russian Empire, so it's probably not appropriate to put this under Ukrainian people. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Try using those arguments in categories on Irish, Polish or Czech people, or those from many other nationalities! Actually much of what is now Ukraine (the Western part) used to be variously Polish, Austrian & I think German. The established convention is to use the current boundaries, which is certainly the best way of minimising the intense passions such categories arouse. This title is I think a sensible attempt to defuse arguments about Poles or Jews born in current Ukrainian territories but who may not have identified as Ukrainian. Using "nationality, residency or ethnicity" for many figures from this area leads to a hopeless morass, and many have to be allowed to be in more than one category. It is also relevant that Ukraine has had a separate seat on the UN since that was founded. Johnbod 15:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I concede your point, but on the other hand, the category needs to be renamed at the very least. It seems to me that it was intended for people who ~~were born in what is now Ukraine,~~ identify as Ukrainian, but never became citizens of it. However, by it's current name, nearly all Ukrainian citizens would qualify for membership. Also I still don't see how this would aid in navigability, since the defining characteristic seems to be non-citizenship. I suppose one could place it somewhere under Category:People of Ukrainian descent, but that doesn't seem exactly right either. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All three current members are identified as Jewish (hyphenated-Jewish) & left Ukraine for Russia, Germany or the US. I think the defining characteristic is probably not identifying as Ukrainian, and not ethnically being so, but being born in the very large Jewish community there (or potentially the same for Poles). I don't think we can divide Ukrainian people into Jews & Gentiles, & I don't think we should bar recognition of people be born within current Ukrainian territory (there are of course far more candidates, like most of the Category:Ukrainian Nobel laureates of not long ago. We should either merge to Ukrainian people, or keep. Johnbod 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think we should have categories based on place of birth, because its not necessarily salient to who they are (or were) throughout the course of their life. For example, suppose X was born to American parents living in London, and moves back to the US when three months old, and in the twenty years since has never gone back. While its certainly true that "X was born in the UK", that fact may have very little to do with their identity, their personality, their life; whereas, the fact they've spent almost the entirety of the first twenty years of their life in the US is far more relevant to who they are. In fact, putting them in a "Category:People born in the United Kingdom" may give a misleading impression that they have some sort of British identification or affiliation that they may not have. So, for that reason, I think instead of categories based on birthplace, we should categories only based on identity (who does/did the person see themselves as?) or significant periods of residence, because unlike birthplace these to facts are salient to the person being who they are. --SJK 08:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recipe for chaos, and certainly not what we do at the moment. How are we supposed to verify what the person saw themselves as? Especially in cases like this, where people are notoriously confused themselves in many cases. This would lead to all sorts of categories like "Burgundian people". At the moment these categories work on having a significant connection with somewhere in either the current or former borders of an existing state, which is the only workable solution. The category should at least be merged into the main Ukrainian one if deleted; to do otherwise rather plays into the hands of anti-Semite nationalists, it seems to me. Needless to say, none of the members of the category were born to US expatriates flitting around the globe. Such examples are little help in making sense of the tangled issues of Eastern European identity. Johnbod 11:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SJK. This is conceptually the same as the "natives of Foo" categories which were ll renamed to "People from Foo" in a series of CfDs early this year (see e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 17#Category:English_people_by_county). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems conceptually more similar to the Irish people categories to me - there are certainly no identity, citizenship or ethnic criteria applied there, are there? Johnbod 11:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SJK and BHG. We do "people from Foo" because several people are in two or more of those, the accident of place of birth is less important. Moreover, since Ukraine has had shifting borders and non-consequative existence being born either within the borders of Ukraine as currently exist means little nor does being born within the borders of Ukraine as they existed at the time or birth means little too. Were a set of siblings born in Chernivtsi in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1944, 1945 born in Romania, Ukraine (or Ukrainian SSR, or USSR), Romania, Germany, and Ukraine (or Ukrainian SSR or USSR) respectively? Does it really matter? no. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are your objections to merging? All these people spent several years/all their pre-adult lives in Ukraine (none in fact are from areas with especially complicated histories) and some appear to be at least partly ethnic Ukrainian. Yet only one is in any other Ukrainian categories. Johnbod 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and re-purpose Category:Emigrants from Ukraine or some such. See for example: Category:Ukrainian immigrants to Canada. But also see Category:Austro-Hungarian emigrants and Category:Imperial Russian emigrants, which might be more appropriate, since you have to emmigrate from a soverign state, not from an ethnic region. Kevlar67 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous consensus. Vegaswikian 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Trey Spruance 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 rename. Kbdank71 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Albums produced by Trey Spruance, convention of Category:Albums by producer. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Also, Secret Chiefs 3 rule. Arabsploitation breakbeat noise and surf guitar, DOWNLOAD IT. Recury 14:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tony Visconti produced 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 rename. Kbdank71 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Albums produced by Tony Visconti, convention of Category:Albums by producer. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:O-Parts Hunter[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 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Blind copy of the deleted category 666 Satan created by a user (Kariteh) whom felt it necessary to rename every 666 Satan related article to O-Parts Hunter in correspondance with its American title. Edits were reverted due to lack of consensus and discussion in addition to the English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia policy. This is not a personal attack in any form upon the creating user but merely a request to delete this category to solve alot of problems so things may be re-evaluated and the category recreated under its proper title, Cat:666 Satan, when the time is right. Therefore, at the moment, as made evident by the deletion of Cat: 666 Satan, this category is not necessary and should therefore be deleted in accordance with such. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 14:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agree as per nominators rationale, nothin else to really say Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 17:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify & Merge to navtemplate 132.205.44.5 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Radio Stations in the Grand Strand[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 into North or South Carolina radio cats. Kbdank71 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Radio stations in the Grand Strand, or Merge into the appropriate state categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, Do Not Merge -- There are enough stations in the Grand Strand to merit a sub-category of the state station list. Merging it into Category:Radio_stations_in_South_Carolina destroys this geographic information.
Delete. No need for this breakout. If kept, rename to Category:Radio Stations in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to follow convention of like categories such as Category:Attractions in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. If renamed, then Category:Television Stations in the Grand Strand, Category:Media Outlets in the Grand Strand and Category:Newspapers in the Grand Strand should receive a similar rename. Vegaswikian 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eponymous musician categories - T[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 13:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - each category is limited to one or more (in several instances none) of the subcats: albums; members; songs; along with in some instances the article for the artist and occasionally a discography. Per precedent this is overcategorization. Otto4711 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom. --West Coast Ryda 18:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Government in Canada by province or territory[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, empty. Kbdank71 13:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: this category contained only one item, Category:Government in Quebec, but this was moved to Category:Politics of Canada by province or territory to be consistent with other categories. Steve, Sm8900 14:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Media Outlets in the Grand Strand[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 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the market area for this is actually {{Myrtle Beach/Florence TV}}. Or at least Rename to Category:Media in the Grand Strand. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vegaswikian 23:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Newspapers in the Grand Strand[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 as proposed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Newspapers published in South Carolina, which is hardly overpopulated. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I created the category to clean up the media section, but this should work just fine. Carson 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Prove It. Vegaswikian 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Thugged Out Entertainment[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 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no potential for growth. All material is extensively interlinked with no need for the category. Otto4711 14:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Seicer[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Spartaz as empty. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale (delete): The user has a dispute with several of my edits regarding Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond. Instead of using the talk page or requesting a WP:RFC, he blantingly deletes portions of text and corrupts references that must be reverted due to numerous errors produced using citation templates. Furthermore, the category is wholly inappropriate and has not been reported to WP:SOCK, and has no factual basis as other IP addresses have reverted his edits for corrupting the citation templates. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator admits to using his IP as a sockpuppet. All 5 or 6 of his edits were used to violate the 3RR rule. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 17:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is something that should be taken up at WP:SOCK or WP:3RR, but you haven't filed a formal request at either. Creating a category for my "abusive socks" is not an acceptable solution. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Television Stations in the Grand Strand[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. Kbdank71 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Television stations in Myrtle Beach/Florence, or at least Renanme to Category:Television stations in the Grand Strand. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Television stations in Myrtle Beach/Florence per nom. No need to categorise TV stations by a diffuse area tourism-based area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to New Category The Grand Strand is its own market, extending from Georgetown to across the border. There is overlap, of course, but I don't think Myrtle Beach / Florence covers the entire area, so the category is misleading. I would prefer some third name for the whole area, although I can't think of one now (county-based would not work, since Florence serves MB and it's in a separate county). Carson 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Prove It as the standard is to cat by market. Vegaswikian 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Major Roads in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina[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:Roads in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Roads in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, or at least Category:Major roads in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Category:Roads of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina per categories elsewhere. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, no arguments here Carson 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roger Taylor[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 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material is extensively interlinked and properly categorized and doesn't warrant a separate category. Otto4711 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Secondary Schools in Muntinlupa 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 merge to Category:High schools in the Philippines. Kbdank71 13:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:High schools in the Philippines, or at least Rename to Category:Secondary schools in Muntinlupa City. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Notable Restaurants in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina[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 deleted as empty. Vegaswikian 23:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Restaurants in South Carolina, convention of Category:Restaurants in the United States. Currently there is only one restaurant with an article in all of South Carolina. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. the "notable" adjective is superfluous (there shouldn't be any articles about non-notable subjects, including restaurants) and Category:Restaurants in South Carolina is too small to need sub-categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I created the category to vent the restaurant / attraction spamming, but this would be more effective. Carson 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Singaporean phenomenons[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:Singaporean culture. Inclusion criteria unclear. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Singaporean phenomenons to Category:Singaporean phenomena

Nominator's rationale: The plural of "phenomenon" is "phenomena", not "phenomenons". Jacklee 12:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Singaporean culture - category isn't large enough to be sustainable. No reason to separate out the two entries from the culture category. Otto4711 12:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, both plural forms are acceptable, according to Encarta and dictionary.com, but I am ok with Jacklee's proposed move. Category:Singaporean culture is more of a super category. Being a small category itself does not adequately justify it being merged. Like a stub, more articles can still be added to Category:Singaporean phenomena in future. Thanks. —Sengkang 14:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Singaporean culture per Otto. Whether or not the plural is correct, we don't have a Category:Phenomena (or Category:Phenomenons), so I think it's premature to start subdividing it by nationality. :) The inclusion criteria are also fairly vague and possibly subjective. Unless someone can offer a clear, unambiguous definition of what distinguishes a "phenomenon" from other aspects of culture, I think we're better off without this category. (Note that this obviously doesn't mean that culture categories can't be subdivided in other ways.) Xtifr _tälk 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Otto. -Sean Curtin 05:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Procedural programming languages[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 reverse merge. Kbdank71 13:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Procedural programming languages to Category:Imperative programming languages

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Content of two categories is to a large degree overlapping, and those that are in one and not the other seem to be so more by accident than design. The concepts which each category represents, while subtly different (in some interpretations at least), are so closely aligned in practice that it is highly likely that any article belonging to one does not reasonably also belong to the other; thus it seems pointless duplication to retain both. SJK 11:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, but would prefer it in the opposite direction to Category:Procedural programming languages. --Bduke 12:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per Bduke and the fact that "procedural programming language" is by far the more common term. Xtifr _tälk 21:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be happy to agree with the reverse merge proposal of Bduke, if that is the consensus - the important thing from my point of view is that the merge take place, rather than the particular direction to merge in. --SJK 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point--I, likewise, would prefer a merge of any sort, though I still think reverse is the best choice. Xtifr _tälk 08:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. The category should be cleaned up: just 1 Pascal (and no Delphi), 1 Basic, no Fox Pro (being procedural is insignificant property here), no Occam (dtto), etc.

Aside note: categorization of programming languages on WP is a sad story of people freely creating a categories for their favourite minor feature (e.g. curly brackets category), inventing artificial "families" of languages, mixing standardized languages, their non-standard extensions and even compilers together and using frequently using incorrect terminology. Pavel Vozenilek 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge per above discussions. Vegaswikian 23:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Shooting victims[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, no consensus evident at this time. Note closure is without prejudice to any future proposal to change the name to something else that may be clearer. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please clarify this category or delete it~~ I would like to know first its description, as it is vague IMHO. Does this category also include those that have been shot before and survived, and then were shot at another time and place and was killed? If yes to, Tupac Shakur should be included here. How about another rapper, Dr. Dre, who was also once shot and lived? And most recently, Death Row Records CEO Suge Knight, who took a bullet in the leg and lived? As said, this should be specified or deleted per vagueness. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category description says "People who have been victims of a shooting, but have survived." which seems clear enough, but needs to be clarified in the name. Maybe Category:People who survived being shot or similar. Rename 12:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)
Delete - as a recreation of a deleted category. Also non-defining. Otto4711 12:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Shooting victims itself is not a recreation, at least not by that name. What deleted category you are referring to? -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misremembering. Was there a rappers who were shot category perhaps? I know there's been at least one "people who got shot" category that's been deleted. Regardless, I still think it's a non-defining characteristic for most people. Otto4711 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the shot rappers, but not a general one. I think it is pretty defining even for Reagan, Andy Warhol and Pope JP2, although perhaps not for everyone. Johnbod 15:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't forget Harry Whittington. I agree it's not usually defining ... but sometimes at is. I think I'll abstain from this one. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm building up an artificial differentiation in my own head but I think there's a difference between surviving an assassination attempt and simply getting shot. Even in many of those cases, like the ones you mention, "survived an assassination attempt" is pretty low on the list of things I'd find notable about them. I'm not going to weep bitter tears if this gets kept but I still just think it's not needed. Otto4711 17:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we're going a tad off-topic, can we get back to answering my questions? I'm asking if Tupac Shakur should be included here, seeing as he survived a shooting the first time, but did not on the second shooting on his life. And what about Gerald Ford? He was shot at, but the bullets never even touched him. Does that enable him in the category since he was involved? If no one is going to answer my questions then I'll just change my vote to a plain delete instead. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no respectively - misses don't count. Johnbod 02:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but make the explanation here clearer, per most reasons said above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Sesshomaru - useful category as long as it clear who qualifies Kernel Saunters 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mobile software companies[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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Ended up being untenable to categorize software companies by category, so many companies cross categories within software industry. Cander0000 06:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Human Rights[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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: speedy merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: closed early per WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Human Rights to Category:Human rights

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate. Alksub 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge obvious capitalization error, redundant category. Xtifr _tälk 06:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per both. Johnbod 12:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.

Disney resorts[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/delete all, OCAT. Noting that these categories appear to have been emptied anyway (presumably merged) by the time of this closure. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney Deluxe Resorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Disney Moderate Resorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Disney Value Resorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hotels in Walt Disney World Resort hotel plaza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hotels in Walt Disney World managed by other companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge all into Category:Hotels in Walt Disney World Resort, overcategorization. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge - Category:Hotels in Walt Disney World Resort needed better organization. This categorization is well defined at the Walt Disney World Resort and is useful in classifying the nearly 3 dozen hotels on WDW property alone. all the above categories are configured as sub categories of Category:Hotels in Walt Disney World Resort and should be left as is. If the concern here is the number of sub categories, perhaps Category:Hotels in Walt Disney World Resort hotel plaza and Category:Hotels in Walt Disney World managed by other companies should be merged into a single "other" type category since they aren't official Disney designations (unlike deluxe, moderate and value).--Rtphokie 12:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom & WP:NOT. Johnbod 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No reason to subcategorize hotels in a specific geographic location by their owner, or especially by their grade of service as claimed by the owners. Neier 09:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge criteria is rather subjective even if used by Disney. Vegaswikian 23:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, way OCAT and Disney's own categorization is not NPOV and really has little bearing on how these ought to be grouped at WP. Carlossuarez46 06:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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