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 16:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Per precedent, producers have to have multiple solo productions to warrant a category, which Armato does not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:12, 24 May 2009 (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.
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 but keep "former". Kbdank71 13:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Expand abbreviation. Do we really need to separate the former leaders from the current leaders? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add a brief introduction to explain the purpose of the category? If Hare Krishna should be there instead, I can live with that. But clearly the category needs an introduction to make its purpose clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction is totally silent on that point. So it would appear that this whole tree has been more problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and rename - to Category:Former ISKCON religious leaders per Wikidas' and Occult's comments above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And not expand the abbreviation to match the parent category? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2009 (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:Australian football (soccer) players[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 per nom per rationale similar to the discussions immediately below. Erik9 (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as per below Mayumashu (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2009 (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:Australian football squad templates[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 per nom. Erik9 (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as per rationale given in nomination below Mayumashu (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename based on parent and the fact that there are other forms of football played in Australia. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2009 (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:Football (soccer) managers in Australia[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 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: listed are exclusively managers of association football clubs, and for Australia, the term 'football' requires clarity and therefore should have the standard wikipedia disambiguate 'football (soccer)' Mayumashu (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename based on the fact that there are other forms of football played in Australia. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nominator (and this support is true for all related cats here aswell). Debresser (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2009 (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.
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 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We've already merged all subcats of this cat into Category:Musical instruments by nationality, and only the parent cat remains. I still submit that MIbN fulfills basically the entire role of this cat, and that the current Category:Folk musical instruments is an impediment to proper categorisation. As it stands, a lot of new articles are chucked into this cat when they are clearly applicable to Category:Nepalese musical instruments, etc. The actual term "folk" is pretty vague, and though I personally enjoy many genres deemed "folk music" I feel the term inhibits proper categorisation and smacks of Western bias. That is, classical Chinese and Indian instruments get lumped as "folk" because they aren't generally played by elderly white Bostonians in tuxedos. I submit that Category:Musical instruments by nationality can take this cat's place in both the Category:Folk music tree and the Category:Musical instruments tree with a major net benefit to the trees and lessened chances of specifically Peruvian/Albanian/Kuwaiti/Malaysian instruments being chucked into "Folk" categories. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2009 (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.
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. If lisification is desired, I will provide the articles. Kbdank71 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - the word 'Liberian' is missing - Liberian Humane Order of African Redemption. Arthur Young (police officer) was given a truly staggering number of such awards, including this one. No evidence is presented to suggest that it is prestigious (the related articles are not good) so I suppose 'delete' would be reasonable. (There is no list that I can find, neither is there even a template.) Occuli (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - added the word "Liberian" to the rename proposal in the nom. Otto4711 (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify - this is essentially 'categorisation by award', which we don't do except for the most notable awards (Oscars, Nobel prizes). I don't think this award qualifies; a list might be acceptable, though. Robofish (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify -- This is the usual solution for awards categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - per a number of previous discussions, consensus is that being selected as the first round draft pick of a particular team is not a defining characteristic. It does not seem to me that being the first round pick within a particular league's draft or having been the first person selected overall in a particular draft is any more defining. If kept then the AFL category needs to be renamed to correct the capitalization. Otto4711 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All (with one possible exception) All of these categories are capturing clear defining characteristics, though I would probably have thought differently of Category:Ontario Hockey League first round draft picks if it weren't lumped together in apparent ignorance as a minor league. While many baseball players drafted in the first round never make the parent team, first overall draft picks in Hockey, Basketball or Football are almost always the top athletes in the sport and are defined by their selection as first pick overall or in the first round. The drama and hype that surrounds the draft of the NFL, especially the first round, is indicative of the strong defining nature of being selected in the first round or first overall. Nominator would benefit greatly from having any understanding of the categories involved rather than trying to ram any vaguely similar categories into the garbage chute based on utterly irrelevant "precedent". Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Unlike the previous discussion which were categorized by teams. This is an overall league cat, it is extremely defining of a player to be selected in the first round of the draft. They get excessive coverage in the media for this very reason. To be a first round pick in most professional sports is akin to receiving a top honour. -Djsasso (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, Agree with Djsasso, that a first round draft pick in the NHL is high honour. I do not completely agree that the OHL is just any minor league, but the importance of the draft picks for the OHL are much less. It should be evaluated seperately.--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the hockey categories - being a first rounder or first overall pick most certainly is notable for such players. No opinion on the WNBA, NFL and AFL cats. Resolute 02:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice the OHL category the first time around. Delete it per the arguments of others. Keep the NHL related categories. Resolute 15:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Ontario Hockey League category, as it is a category for ice hockey players drafted out of a particular league, and not defining in ice hockey, and
Keep the other categories, as they are in regards to major professional leagues, and defining in regards to the players. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what do you mean by: the OHL category is for "ice hockey players drafted out of a particular league"? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The OHL category is for NHL players who were drafted from the OHL. That is not as defining as the other categories, seeing how they are all professional leagues, while the OHL is a junior league with an age limit on players. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that category was for players drafted in the first round of the OHL draft. -Djsasso (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then I'm even more opposed to the category. Few OHL first rounders become professional, so the majority of anyone in this category would be not notable enough. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep everything except the Ontario Hockey League category largely per Djsasso's reasoning. Neutral on the OHL category, which doesn't seem to be as defining a characteristic as the other ones. I fully admit to being an ignorant American when discussing Canadian hockey leagues though. BryanG (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the OHL category. I find Twas Now's argument persuasive; if we're not considering players who did not advance past the OHL notable, then I have a hard time believing OHL draft status is a defining characteristic or even particularly notable. BryanG (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only the OHL category: If we don't consider players notable whose highest level of competition is the OHL, then being drafted to that league shouldn't be notable, either. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also swaying toward deleting the "first round" categories. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:28, 31 May 2009 (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.
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 16:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In effect "Soccer clubs in Adelaide" has been renamed to "Football (soccer) clubs in Adelaide", but it wasn't physically done that way, so the empty, inappropriately named and no longer used Category:Soccer clubs in Adelaide still exists. It now needs to be deleted. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename based on parent and the fact that there are other forms of football played in Australia. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2009 (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.
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 16:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Scientology is compatible with other religions. (see Scientology and other religions) This a basic tenet of Scientology. Secondly, as a new wave religion, most Scientologists are not born into it, making this categorization superfluous. Gilliam (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There would appear to be very few people who have been born as Scientologists, making this category a near match for the parent Category:Scientologists. Unless someone has a better explanation of what this category adds as a basis for navigation. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both the nom: one apparently doesn't convert to Scientology, just adds it to they religion collection; and Alansohn's point for new religions a "converts to" (even were the religion not compatible with other religions) is essential redundant to members of categories.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2009 (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.
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:no consensus. Kbdank71 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am afraid you have to nominate all the others such as Category:American Hare Krishnas ... it makes no sense to change things piecemeal. Category:Gaudiya Vaishnavas doesn't exist. So your complete nom would be to change 'Hare Krishnas' to 'Gaudiya Vaishnavas' throughout category space? (We do have Category:Gaudiya Vaishnava, but not Category:Hare Krishna.) I might well support this if thoroughly done ... it would be helpful to have some more input from experts in this area, which I am not (and neither is Good Olfactory AFAIK, and EstherLois is PastorWayne, a methodist pastor). Occuli (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree in Wikipedia we go by name known to average reader. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/lean to oppose. You're right Occuli, I've no particular expertise in this area. When I created the categories I used the most common name that I thought would be known to readers, as Debresser suggests should be done. As far as I know "Hare Krishna" is not an offensive or derogatory term in the way "Moonies" is, so I don't see a compelling reason to change the names away from the most common usage. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's already covered by another category, why are you proposing that a new category be created? If there were another one that covers the same topic, you should be proposing a merge to the pre-existing category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Wikidi. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Further up this page is a nom concerning ISKON, with a probable outcome of "Category:Former International Society for Krishna Consciousness religious figures". This should conform to its outcome, possibly "International Society for Krishna Consciousness members by nationality". Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2009 (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.
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 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the term "skin" should probably be renamed to "cutaneous" as the scope of these categories are not strictly limited to conditions that affect the skin, but also the mucous membranes (i.e. inside the mouth, lining of the eyes, nose, etc.). There also seems to be a strong consensus in favor of using the term "cutaneous" in this context. For a listing of conditions being considered part of these categories, see the list_of_skin-related_conditions#Infectious_skin_diseases. With that being said, if this rename is enacted, I will (1) add additional information to the category introductions discussing the category title in language directed towards the general reader, and (2) create redirects from the existing category names. ---kilbad (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per nom, for the same reasons as the chronic blistering skin conditions. Skin isn't all-inclusive; cutaneous is. Danierrr (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support—This makes a lot of sense and is logical. Thanks to Kilbad, who alerted me to this discussion since I supported his preliminary moves in this direction. Tony(talk) 04:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above comments and nom. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (without "-related") I agree with the reasoning for cutaneous, but "-related" basically amounts to a weasel word, adding nothing that I can see to clarify the inclusion criteria. The parent List of skin-related conditions uses "-related" to modify "skin", not the source of the condition. Alansohn (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think having "-related" is important because certain conditions being included are not merely active infections by a particular pathogen (whether it be a virus, bacterium, etc.). Several conditions being included are complications/sequela of infectious processes, therefore related to the infection but not the infection itself. ---kilbad (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2009 (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.
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 (was empty at close). Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category is a duplicate and is already empty. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The name of this cat, which I created nearly two years ago, is definitely too ambiguous. The single article in the category has been moved to the more appropriately named Category:Shipwrecks of the Georgia (U.S. state) coast. Maralia (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete. Note: Georgia (country) was a Black Sea coast. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2009 (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.
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:no consensus. Kbdank71 13:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep where are articles? Debresser (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a pop culture term and not a real identity. Also, per nom, the proper term for an individual is a Gaudiya Vaishnava - and not the mantra Hare Krishna. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2009 (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.
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:no consensus. Kbdank71 13:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it is empty because one Wikidas has emptied it on 23 May. Is there an alternative means of categorising such people? Eg A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada looks like a 'Hare Krishna religious leader' to me, and surely there are others. Occuli (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and repopulate This is a strong defining characteristic. Any entries removed should be reinserted. Alansohn (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note –The category is redundant since all the leaders and figures were located under Category:ISKCON religious figures or other categories. Hare Krishna in Wikipedia refers mainly to the Hare Krishna mantra. One of ISKCON leaders was listed for a very long time in this category, while all others were already in Category:ISKCON religious figures
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.
