The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
In a December 16 debate [1], we decided that Category:UCLA football should become Category:UCLA Bruins football to match a syntax used in a bunch of new categories under Category:College football teams. Now a similar effort is underway for Category:College basketball teams. I think the basketball one should be renamed at least, and perhaps the others.-- Mike Selinker 23:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 17:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Batch deletion request:
I originally created all of the above categories. I split the men's and women's programs because UConn has highly prominent men's and women's programs. However, Mike Selinker left a comment on my talk page which persuaded me that there shouldn't be separate categories for men and women.
I've since merged all articles into master categories for UConn basketball and UConn basketball players.
Would the men's and women's categories now be appropriate for a speedy? — Dale Arnett 23:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. Trivial, irrelevant, and inherently POV (we all have dimples from time to time). Mark 1 21:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename to comply with capitalization standard. Sparkit 20:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Rename to comply with capitalization standard. Sparkit 20:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This category was fed by a now condemned template, {{ Lowercase-Apple}}.Deletion is policy, this isn't any big controversy. HereToHelp ( talk) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 17:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
comment I can see people have put in a lot of work to these categories, but I think if categories for film or TV show actors are to be accepted we need to also accept the practice of having categories for individuals to avoid article pages becoming overloaded (a prolific actor could end up being in hundreds of these types of categories). I am still not sure why we need them though if we have cast lists on film/TV show pages and filmographies on people's articles. Arniep 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Both mean the same thing. In fact, one is the subcategory of the other! It might be better merging the other way round, anyone got an opinion? Tom Edwards 17:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Who is and who is not a character actor is POV Delete and listify if judged encyclopedic. Arniep 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Template:User bi (The template which used this name was wrongly moved at Template:User bis, see Wikipedia:Requested moves) wrong categorized as this category. -- Hello World! 14:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Unused category that is pretty redundant since people by occupation is split into South Koreans and North Koreans (as in Category:South Korean film directors). Category:Korean actors was deleted some time ago, and this should follow. If someone writes an article about a Korean film director that died before the country was split, the category can be recreated, but keeping it until then isn't helpful. Bobet 13:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious. Correcting the case. wknight94 13:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I expect the expanded name is what is intended, and if it isn't, it needs restructuring anyway. Category:American basketball coaches already exist, though it is little used, but it means something different, and I can see value in having both as there are also large categories for high school and college basketball coaches. Calsicol 12:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I had to look up ABA to know what this was for. Rename. Calsicol 12:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
So far, Category:Songs by year groups 19th-21st century songs only by year, without parenting those songs by decade or century; it also doesn't further subcategorize them by year, let alone by decade. As currently used, this category results in loss of category specificity for the songs in the category. Delete. If kept, the full title should be Category:2000s pop songs to fit with other 'X by year' categories. - Sean Curtin 04:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
If " Category:Controversial books" has been whacked, then "Controversial films" should get whacked also. I will not bother cfd'ing "Bannd films" since "banning" is somehow felt by others (in a manner I disagree with) to be qualitatively different.
A parallel discussion is going in with my cfd on December 24 of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Banned books. I have no problems with lists, but I find use of categores (which are implemented and appear in the individual work) in this manner to be INTRUSIVE in the browsing of these films and books.
And while we are at it, we should try to make a decision on:
I decided to leave "Controversial birds" out since it has something to do with squabbling taxonomists. --
To really see the scope of the problem visit:
Again, I like browsing to a nice collection of controvisial stuff, but I do not like it intruding on the individual work. And I can use "What links here" if I want to know what lists a work is on.
Fplay 03:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply