Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 30 April 1 >

March 31[edit]

Category:Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts alumni[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: delete. Kbdank71 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete More an article rather than a category. SMS Talk 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the alumni tree. Rajpal Yadav is another; I expect more can be found. Occuli (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless there are more, this is likely over categorization. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not alumni in any real sense, this academy awards no advanced degrees - this is more like on-the-job training places, like the McDonald's and other cats we eliminated, just a little more high-brow, but essentially the same. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2008 (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.

Category:Bhartendu Natya Academy alumni[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: delete. Kbdank71 12:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bhartendu Natya Academy alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete More an article rather than a category. SMS Talk 22:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bhartendu Natya Academy might well be the same institution as Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts above, in which case this category is redundant. Occuli (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not alumni in any real sense, this academy awards no advanced degrees - this is more like on-the-job training places, like the McDonald's and other cats we eliminated, just a little more high-brow, but essentially the same. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2008 (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.

Category:Mobile Operators in Iraq[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: rename. Kbdank71 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mobile Operators in Iraq to Category:Mobile phone companies of Iraq
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use standard format of Category:Mobile phone companies by country. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (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.

Category:Christian Restorationists and Christian Zionists[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: relisted on april 7. Kbdank71 17:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christian Restorationists and Christian Zionists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is apparently about the Restoration of Israel - but it is confusing because the Restorationism movement is also implied. Brian0324 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Christian Zionists. I don't think deletion is the answer; it's a valid classification for Christians. The main article is at Christian Zionism, and it points out that the term used to be "Christian Restorationism", but due to the popularisation of the term Restorationism to mean Mormonism, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., the term has become "Christian Zionism". The creator was just probably trying to cover the bases, i.e., to be sure to cover people who were Christian Zionists before that term came into use, but I don't see anything wrong with applying the term retrospectively due to the confusing term "Christian Restorationist". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Christian Zionists. per aboveBrian0324 (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Christian Zionists. I put it up and I'm good with renaming it. The problem, of course, is anachronism. American Clio (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)American Clio[reply]
  • Strong Delete person by opinion category, not even a religion category because it is a sub-tenet of a belief that we're focusing on for categorization, why not take the next steps: Christian Transubstantiationists, Christian Millennialists, Christians who accept the perpetual virginity of Mary, Christians who do not accept infant baptism, and all sorts of other sub-tenets. And also ambiguous: some Christians are "Christian Zionists" as WP labels the term, but does that define them? some Christians are "Zionists" as WP labels that term, and if asked would consider themselves Christian Zionists, does that define them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (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.

Mr and Miss Golden Globe[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: Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Miss Golden Globe winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mr. Golden Globe winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by non-defining award. Otto4711 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto. Wow, the category descriptions state "The honoree, traditionally the daughter/son of a celebrity, assists in the Association's Golden Globe Awards." That is not much claim to "defining-ness". This looks like the sort of thing that wouldn't even necessarily be mentioned in the person's article, so it definitely shouldn't be a category. In other words, this isn't really even exactly an "award" to the person -- it's more of an honorary title, styled as an award, but it doesn't appear to reflect individual achievement or merit or anything like that. As such, it's not defining. (If kept by some strange twist of CFD, please delete the "Mr. GG" category because it has only one member, and is really just an honorary gender-name-change for an "award" typically given to women. There's no separate article for it.) --Lquilter (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as the list of "Miss" does a good job, and there is only one "Mr" in the list. —ScouterSig 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify (if necessary) and then delete - This is the usual solution to award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2008 (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.

Category:American Peers[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: rename. Kbdank71 12:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to American nobility or to be decided by consensus. Peerage applies only to the United Kingdom and France...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this page still needs to be deleted. Besides I didnt want to make such a big move with out consulting everyone here first...--Camaeron (t/c) 10:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it needs to be merged, and you need to tag Category:American nobility. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribute contents - this category is a hotchpotch of different ones, which need to be sorted inot several subcategories of "American nobility". Spanish viceroys were (I think) governors, not hereditary nobles. The Canadian subcategories could be added to "American nobility". I have removed one mistaken item, a baronet (not a peer anyway) who served in America. "American royalty" (including emperors) are not really "nobility", but gathering them as a subcategory would be harmless. This will largely empty the category. When empty or nearly so, delete. Sorry, not an easy answer. AS a matter of fact, most European countries have or have had a nobility; "peer" probably only applies strictly to British and Irish peerages. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recomment. I broadly agree with Peterkingiron; some stuff here is not needed at all - the viceroys were governors, always already with Spanish titles. But btw, the French had Peerage of France "pairs" from whom the English copied the name, and the Spanish, Portuguese and Brazilian Grandees are also normally considered the same thing. Category:American nobility should be renamed, but that is for another nomination. If a basic merge to American nobility is done, and I am reminded, I would be ready to prune and redistribute. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I stand by the view expressed above. I also agree with the rename of Category:American nobility to Category:Nobility of the Americas. There is a lot that needs sorting out. We also need Category:Monachies of the Americas or Category:American royalty or both (one for states and the other for people). On the other hand there is a "Former Monarchies of the Americas" (I think it was), which is in fact full of former British colonies, which have been amalgamated into Canada or renamed on independence. The Viceroys (though not hereditary) might be collected as ONE category of "nobility". The whole tree is an utter mess, but I am afraid that I do not intend to tidy it up. It requires a bold admin, who is prepared to devise a viable tree and implement it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2008 (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.

Category:Underworld Race[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: Merge Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Underworld Race to Category:Underworld (films)
Nominator's rationale: Merge: the badly named category should be deleted and the single article within it moved to its parent category. It looks like this category isn't going to be useful. Wipe (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2008 (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.

Category:Sport in Guam[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: Rename to Category:Sports in Guam. non-admin closure CWii(Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Sport in Guam to Category:Sports in Guam
Nominator's rationale: Merge duplicate categories, Target category is older, and "sports" should probably be used anyway since Guam is a territory of the United States. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2008 (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.

Category:Die Hard films[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: delete. Kbdank71 12:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Die Hard films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category is essentially the four movies and one picture. It is more thoroughly and appropriately connected by Template:Die Hard. —ScouterSig 02:19, 31 March 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_31&oldid=1146511820"