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 Intended to include fictional characters that appear on shows produced for British TV channel E4. This is not a meaningful categorization. Pichpich (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A precedent for creating categories of original characters of NBC would be established and every other television network if we were to let this one exist.Curb Chain (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this very specific identifying of exactly where characters were originally created doew not seem useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2011 (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:Rename. The semantics aren't clear - it looks to mean "competitors in the 'Dual Olympics', whatever the 'Dual Olympics' are. The intended meaning is a category for individuals who have competed in both the Summer and Winter Olympics. Rename to Category:Competitors in both the Summer and Winter Olympics? (Is it clear from this name that the minimum for inclusion (just) is having competed in one summer one and one winter one?) Mayumashu (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to include "both the Summer and Winter Olympics" – the present name might include people who have competed in 2 different disciplines. Occuli (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like Lugnuts alternative. Although probably should be named Athletes who have competed.... Globalwheels (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a trivial intersection. We categorize people by specific olympic competitions they were in and specific olympics they were in. I do not see the need for this intersection category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John. I don't see the need for this intersection category. Each bio article of a "dual" Olympics competitor can be adequately categorized within our existing structure, and the fact they've been in a winter and summer game should be mentioned in the article. That's sufficient.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change from rename to delete Agree with John and Shawn - this probably isn't best suited to a category at all. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2011 (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:merge and delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to match the main article. The category page itself has nothing in the way of explaining the entry criteria.Curb Chain (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, could be a speedy. Just language. Hugo999, it's yours. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2011 (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.
Nominators rationale: These are categories in a series filled automatically by Userboxes on script knowledge (see also for example Category:User Cyrl). This being the English Wikipedia, categorising Users with knowledge of Latin script is overdone. Therefor, when using the Userbox with "Latn" it is exempted from categorisation. So the reasonable logic is coded in the template: I'd call that consensus. The category should not exist. Still, two users are in this category. One has used the wrong Userbox, the other one has hardcoded this category in their userpage. These two users would end up with a red Category link. -DePiep (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2011 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Confusing with San Antonio, Texas. Already corrected those from Texas who were erroneously listed there. But category needs to be more geographic specific Maile66 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this worked correctly, but there is an existing Category:People from San Antonio that is not specific enough. It seems to have been set up for the San Antonio in Chile.Maile66 (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea, but the problem is that some people will see the "San Antonio, San Antonio" and still assume it's their local San Antonio. Not everyone will understand about "Province" with the same name. Especially if they're using Hot Cat to add the category.Maile66 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the goal of disambiguating is not to make things dumb-proof, nor is our job here to try to anticipate what dumb or careless people with do Mayumashu (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the article page for Birmingham, West Midlands is at Birmingham - article pages and cat pages can have different names, as WP:Commonname, in practice, is more applicable to article naming than cat naming. Mayumashu (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Birmingham is ambiguous (except in England and Alabama) whereas San Antonio, Chile is not. Occuli (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is very surprising that San Antonio is the Texas one; this considerably over-estimates the global fame of the place. Occuli (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. I'd prefer to match this to the article name San Antonio, Chile. Perhaps there is a legitimate argument for renaming the article? Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. San Antonio, Texas has 1.33 million people, San Antonio, Chile has less than 100,000 people. This is the English-language wikipedia, so we would expect places in English-speaking countries to be the ones designated first by a name. However, I doubt any other San Antonio has nearly the international recognition of San Antonio, Texas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2011 (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.
