From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 15 July 17 >

July 16

Category:Museums in Georgia, United States to Category:Museums in Georgia (U.S. state)

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The proposal is in line with other Georgia (U.S. state) categories. Nathcer 23:20, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Infrastructure of Poland

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This is the only such national category, and it adds little. Delete Hawkestone 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment. Category:Transport of Poland (or transportation) would be in line with other country subcats. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 17 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Voivodships of Poland to Category:Voivodeships of Poland

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename (action has already taken by Elonka ( talk • contribs)). -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A recent discussion/poll at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography of Poland concluded, and the consensus was that the correct spelling of this administrative unit should be Voivodeship not Voivodship [1]. This nomination is intended to cover all of the subcategories in this category as well. -- Elonka 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose -- contrary to long established Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
    1. The current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Follow local conventions states: "Generally, use the official English name for the place and its type."
    2. The official spelling is "voivodship", published just this year at " Administrative Division of Poland 2006", an official document on a Polish government site. In English, the government site is referenced by everything from the Polish "Ministry of Transport and Construction", to "Addresses, phone numbers and WWW pages of Ministeries", to external non-Polish sites such as the "Ordnance Survey" (the national mapping agency of Great Britain), and "Intellectual Property Law".
    3. Since there are official published English names, it doesn't matter whether that differs from past translation practice, or old English traditions (or Wikipedian Google searches for them).
    4. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Include alternatives states: "When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliterations and English alphabet transliterations. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names are transliterations of the name 北京."
    5. It is Original Research for Wikipedians to substitute their choices (votes) for the official translations of the Polish government. Wikipedia:No original research is policy.
    6. Just as we've recently spent some time on Serbia and Montenegro, should the Polish government decide next week that it has something else, we'll rename to match. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating society.
    -- William Allen Simpson 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Support. The issue was debated by those familiar with the subject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, and the various uses of the term were examined on websites and in outside works of reference. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the correct spelling is "Voivodeship". -- Elonka 23:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Support, as Elonka. This follows long discussion of the subject by many users closely familiar with it. William Allen Simpson's claim of an "official Polish government version" is without solid evidence.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 12:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Support, there indeed is a consensus at talk or relevant pages.--  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus   talk  14:15, 23 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Residential architecture in London to Category:Housing in London

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

At present this category does not match category:Housing in the United Kingdom. Olborne 21:49, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Fauna by country

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

We now have "fauna of" categories for many,if not most countries, but there are still discrepancies left over from previous attempts at similar categorization, which now needs flattening into a "Animal type of country" format:

For these 4 oddballs, a choice needs to be made. At worst, a subcat can always be added specifically for introduced fauna.

And while at it, some other "fooian extinct animals":


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Identified Chemical Substances

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, empty -- Kbdank71 14:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Much too broad to be useful, and its presence in Template:ChemicalSources means it's the first category in almost every article about a chemical. — Keenan Pepper 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I object. Until now there is no category covering only (pure, identified) chemical substances, all categories also contain pages that are not strictly chemicals, are mixtures, etc., which makes finding only chemical substances impossible. I concur that it is now the first category on every page, and that would need to be solved (can you hide a category?). I am willing to discuss other options. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 19:34, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:User ??-?

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A userbox that states "This box is kept empty for tax purposes" places this category on user pages. It should be deleted as it is very ambiguously titled. Also, joke userboxes should not have categories. -- musicpvm 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about at all.-- Regeane Silverwolf 11:01, 18 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Historic houses in North Carolina to Category:Houses in North Carolina

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge. No other U.S. state has separate categories for houses and "historic houses" and it isn't a useful distinction. Only notable houses should have articles and any notable house that was built yesterday or earlier is "historic". Sumahoy 17:28, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Women of Pakistan

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this category under the umbrella of "women by nationality." Before commenting here, please consult the DRV, which contains the arguments in favor of retention, as well as a history of this category's listings on CfDs. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain Xoloz 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Here's a more readable view of the DRV 192.101.136.110 15:34, 21 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Nigerian Yoruba Article

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This category contains one article, which is also in Category:Yoruba mythology, which is a subcategory of Category:Yoruba, which is a subcatgory of Category:Ethnic groups in Nigeria. Honbicot 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as nom. Honbicot 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Recury 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless and until there is a useful, verifiable distinction between Nigerian Yoruba and other Yoruba. -- M @ r ē ino 19:51, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Avifauna of Georgia to Category:Avifauna of Georgia (U.S. state)

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Georgia is both a state and a country. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Hood Films

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 13:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I know what they're going for here, but "hood film" is hardly an encyclopedic term. Should probably be renamed to Category:Urban crime films or something similar. -- FuriousFreddy 16:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • If not "Urban crime films", then "Gangsta films" or "Urban gangsta films" or...?  If nothing else, rename to Category:Hood films. Regards, David Kernow 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC), updated 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Isn't it original research to invent new genres on our own? A film genre is more than just saying that some films have something in common, like they were all directed by Hitchcock, it makes a statement that the films are alike in some more complex, deeper way and that they make a group distinct from other genres. If this genre is attested to in movie criticism then I would expect the right name would be found in the same sources. -- JeffW 05:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Fair enough; I forgot this category would be treated generically. Regards, David 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This name is slang, and I don't think it represents an established genre. Nathan Mercer 01:57, 23 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedians who like television by series

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all as nominated except Category:Wikipedians interested in TV -- Kbdank71 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a group of Wikipedian categories that have no rhyme or reason to their naming and so this is a step to get things consistent. The "fans" don't even know how they want their categories named, so those who just like a television show have been more consistent. Also, this will keep from having two separate categories, those who just like a show and those who are fans. The parent category is also up for renaming to be consistant with the children. At the end are two categories to be merged.
&#151; Lady Aleena talk/ contribs 13:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Wikipedians interested in TV to Category:Wikipedians who like television by series
Category:Wikipedians who watch American Idol to Category:Wikipedians who like American Idol
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Aqua Teen Hunger Force to Category:Wikipedians who like Aqua Teen Hunger Force
Category:Fans of CSI to Category:Wikipedians who like CSI
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Carnivàle to Category:Wikipedians who like Carnivàle
Category:Cowboy Bebop Fans to Category:Wikipedians who like Cowboy Bebop
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of DTNG to Category:Wikipedians who like DTNG
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Drawn Together to Category:Wikipedians who like Drawn Together
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of ECW to Category:Wikipedians who like ECW
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Fairly OddParents to Category:Wikipedians who like The Fairly OddParents
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Family Guy to Category:Wikipedians who like Family Guy
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Firefly to Category:Wikipedians who like Firefly
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Friends to Category:Wikipedians who like Friends
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Futurama to Category:Wikipedians who like Futurama
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Green Wing to Category:Wikipedians who like Green Wing
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Jeopardy! to Category:Wikipedians who like Jeopardy!
Category:User LOST to Category:Wikipedians who like LOST
Category:M*A*S*H fans to Category:Wikipedians who like M*A*S*H
Category:Fans of the Mysterious Cities of Gold to Category:Wikipedians who like The Mysterious Cities of Gold
Category:Pokémon Fan Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Pokémon
Category:Wikipedian Seinfeld Fans to Category:Wikipedians who like Seinfeld
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Simpsons to Category:Wikipedians who like The Simpsons
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Smallville to Category:Wikipedians who like Smallville
Category:Wikipedians Into The Sopranos to Category:Wikipedians who like The Sopranos
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of South Park to Category:Wikipedians who like South Park
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of SpongeBob SquarePants to Category:Wikipedians who like SpongeBob SquarePants
Category:Trekkie Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek
Category:Twin Peaks Fans to Category:Wikipedians who like Twin Peaks
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Wheel of Fortune to Category:Wikipedians who like Wheel of Fortune
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of X-Files to Category:Wikipedians who like The X-Files
Category:Wikipedians interested in Doctor Who merge into Category:Wikipedians who like Doctor Who
Category:User Monty Python and Category:Wikipedian Monty Python fans merge to Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python
Category:User Veronica Mars merge into Category:Wikipedians who like Veronica Mars
  • Support all except the first one. This category contains a couple subcategories that are not by series. Also, there are significant numbers of categories that are "Wikipedians interested in..." so I'm not sure the change is obvious. You could even argue that comparing category:Wikipedians by musician, that the categories above should be under "Wikipedians by television series," and that should be under "Wikipedians interested in television." Regardless, everything else should change as nominated.-- Mike Selinker 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Sounds fair enough. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™/ ?! 18:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all for consistency and rename the first one to Category:Wikipedians interested in television per Mike. -- musicpvm 18:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Support. A little bit of consistancy is not bad here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Support, although I'm with Mike on the first one, which is a little tricky and may encompass more than just fans of specific series. Otherwise a welcome idea, both in terms of preferable terminology and consistency.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 19:28, 23 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mecca mosques and Medina mosques

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Proposal is to rename:

All other sub-cats of Category:Mosques by city use the "in city" naming, such as Category:Mosques in Cairo, Category:Mosques in Islamabad, Category:Mosques in Istanbul, and Category:Mosques in Jerusalem. At the Category:Mosques by country level the naming convention is "in region" as well, such as Category:Mosques in Bahrain. Kurieeto 13:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Rename both "X in Y" is the convention for buildings and structures. Chicheley 15:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename both per nom and above. David Kernow 03:04, 17 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Histories of Polish cities to Category:Histories of cities in Poland

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 08:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

To match similarly scoped categories Category:Histories of cities in the United States, Category:Histories of cities in India, Category:Histories of cities in Germany, and more. Kurieeto 13:30, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Indoor soccer

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was cat redirect. -- RobertG ♬ talk 08:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This is empty and the non U.S. centric category already exists at Category:Indoor football (soccer). Twittenham 11:43, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:English inside-forwards

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Too specific for a separate category. Punkmorten 11:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Overspecific and rather old-fashioned. There are too many categories on the average leading footballer's article already. Twittenham 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sounds painful. David Kernow 03:06, 17 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Killer7 characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

empty category Melaen 11:12, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedian supporters of Western Sahara

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename both as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:08, 26 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sister cities to Category:Twin towns

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge both to Category:Sister cities and twin towns -- Kbdank71 15:05, 26 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Singer-lyricists to Category:Singer-songwriters

and

Category:American singer-lyricists to Category:American singer-songwriters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Both terms mean the same thing. The singer-lyrcist categories were created much later and are much less populated. They should be merged into the singer-songwriter categories as that is the more common term. -- musicpvm 06:06, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sport WikiProjects to Category:WikiProject Sports

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:59, 26 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People of African descent

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 14:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or merge to Category:African emigrants. Every human in the world is of African descent, and we do not categorize people by "descent". -- William Allen Simpson 04:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not the same thing as "emigrant" at all. An emigrant has to have lived in Africa personally. Twittenham 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Almost completely useless. Chicheley 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:People of sub-Saharan African descent. Againt, it's obvious what the intention of the category is, and it seems a decent one, but it just needs renaming, not deletion.-- FuriousFreddy 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per FuriousFreddy. The biological fact that the "out of Africa" theory of human evolution is almost certainly true is no reason to deny the sociological fact that people whose families left Africa in the last 500 years (the group that this cat covers) are often treated differently than people who left Africa 1 million years ago. -- M @ r ē ino 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete What does this have to do with making an encyclopedia? Nothing in my view. Olborne 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a useless category when we already have e.g. Category:African Americans or Category:British Africans. What does "descent" mean anyway? Race is a social construct. As for "emigrants", we already have "People from ..." categories. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • 99% of Wikipedia categories are social constructs! What is "Irish American" if not a social construct? What is "politician" if not a social construct? -- M @ r ē ino 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion. If ones subscribes to the Out of Africa theory, we all belong to this category, making it useless. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is perfectly fine as a top category for Category:African Americans, Category:People of South African descent, Category:Afro-Trinidadians, etc. Your argument that everyone is of African descent because of the "out of Africa" theory is a non sequitur as it means we should call everyone Africans. When you say someone is of "African descent" or of "african ancestry," no one will understand you to mean all people.-- Ezeu 06:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep -- Look at this list of similar categories. How can we NOT have it when we have all these others? (Does this mean that anything listed here should be cross-listed under its other nationality -- e.g. Category:Afro-Brazilians should also be listed under Category:People of Brazilian descent -- right? Bookgrrl 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Concur w/ William Allen Simpson. No doubt it would be the largest category in wikipedia. -- Szvest 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It is useful as a top-level category. There is no need to add individual people to this category, but to the sub-categories. This category will not be large at all. -- Ezeu 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per User:Ezeu's argument and that it refers to the (modern) continent (ie. the countries that make up the continent which did not exist when 'out of Africa' happened) not any "race" and should include Arab, White or any kind of Africans as well Mayumashu 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Apparently we do categorise people by descent, [2] and as Ezeu says, this is a perfectly decent top category for the existing sub-cats. Btw, what's with the "out of Africa" red herring: sure, humanity descended millenia ago from Africans, but does African American refer to all Americans? JackyR | Talk 10:32, 19 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Roman Catholic Canadians to Category:Canadian Roman Catholics

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:51, 26 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sea_and_river_deities_to_Category:Water_deities

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I propose renaming Category:Sea and river deities to Category:Water deities (it could be Category:Aquatic deities, which is used in the Greek deities info-box -- see Harpina -- but IMHO more people are likely to think of "water" than "aquatic"). Doesn't seem appropriate to limit H2O gods and goddesses to just seas and rivers. What about lakes, ponds, springs, streams, rain, etc? For example, Wuluwaid (rain god), Underwater panthers (which include lakes and streams), Oceanids (springs, clouds, rain), Jengu (which include streams and estuaries), Wentshukumishiteu (waterfalls as well as rivers]], Varuna (god of rain as well as of sea), and many more. I also notice that the Category:Sea and river deities page has a "see also Category:Rain deities, which doesn't exist, so this would solve that problem as well...)

Would also require renaming the subcats Category:Sea and river gods and Category:Sea and river goddesses. Bookgrrl 03:00, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Streets and squares by city

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Streets and squares are permanently located man-made entities. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Man-made objects, by country categories of such things are named "in country". I believe this should be applied to the following by city categories as well. There's no reason to change the naming convention in this case when going from countries to cities, as "in place" remains the most natural, precise, and appropriate wording choice possible. All other permanently located man-made entity by city categories have followed the "in country" wording of the by country model, including for example Category:Churches by city (Ex: Category:Churches in Toronto) and Category:Skyscrapers by city (Ex: Category:Skyscrapers in Phoenix). The following renamings are proposed:

-- Kurieeto 02:28, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Romantic comedies and Category:Miracle operas and Category:Psychological dramas

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 08:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete as part of clear out of superfluous opera cats. - Kleinzach 02:26, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:LDS Wikipedians to Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate categories. Merge. - EurekaLott 02:20, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:God Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Category populated by a deleted and protected userbox. Delete. - EurekaLott 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, useless. Punkmorten 11:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nonsense. Chicheley 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless someone can alert me to the existence of a serious (as in, non-joke) religion in which human beings refer to themselves as literal Gods. It is my understanding that The Nation of Gods and Earths does not use the term that way (they use it figuratively), but I might be wrong.-- M @ r ē ino 20:00, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:User religion... to Category:Wikipedians interested in religions

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This cryptic category populated by a userbox duplicates a better-named category. - EurekaLott 02:20, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Children's opera

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 18:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Category:Children's operas already exists. - Kleinzach 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • That is true because opera and operas have different functions. In this case both (children's) categories have identical ones. They both exist as sub-cats of 'operas by genre'. - Kleinzach 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Blotwell's right, but there aren't enough articles about children's opera to warrant a category. In fact, other than the operas themselves, there are zero articles. Fireplace 02:19, 19 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:History of foreign relations of the United States to Category:History of the foreign relations of the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Missing definite article. Related nomination here.
David Kernow 00:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC), updated 04:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Rename as nom. David Kernow 00:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I think that History of United States foreign relations would be best in my opinion, provided that is in line with the category naming rules (I know they're complicated, and I'm not up on them) and parallel with similar structures. But if not, then OK. Herostratus 02:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, but forgot to mention above that "History of United States foreign relations" would conflict with its parent category's format, "Foreign relations of the United States" – so thanks for prompting me to include it. I'm also reminded of a related nomination from a few days back, which I've now mentioned above. Regards, David Kernow 04:09, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Folk opera

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Folk opera is something of a contradiction in terms. Folk music, folksong may be written by the folk, but folk opera is not! As a descriptive term folk opera may sometimes be apposite but as a categtory it is too vague to be useful, - Kleinzach 00:49, 16 July 2006 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_16&oldid=1142498611"