From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 28 May 30 >

May 29

Category:Seats of government of United States Indian reservations to Category:Tribal governments of American Indians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 to Category:Seats of government of American Indian reservations. Conscious 08:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Past rename attemps tried to deal with removing the U.S. and fixing the name. The U.S. has been delt with so maybe we can reach consensus on a better name. The other choices suggested in that last discussion were Category:Seats of government of Indian reservations in the United States and Category:Indian reservation seats of government. Just a nom for now no vote from me. Vegaswikian 00:31, 30 May 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.

Automobile manufacturers II

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 00:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Nom resulting from a DRV that wasn't going anywhere of this previous CFD. Technical nomination so no vote. Kotepho 23:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Rename should reflect local usage, see previous CFD Ian3055 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
With Grutness's amendment Ian3055 18:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - but the New Zealand one should be Category:Motor manufacturers of New Zealand, not " Category:Category:Automobile manufacturers of New Zealand" :) Grutness... wha? 06:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oops. I had it correct in one place at least. Kotepho 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, with the modification for New Zealand mentioned above. Bhoeble 11:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as above. Septentrionalis 23:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose, idiosyncratic usage is confusing, and implies that scope of these companies' production is not comparable to those in other countries. An outsider might walk away thinking that the U.K. exports no whole cars, only parts to be assembled elsewhere. Naming consistancy and predictability is more important in category space than article space, due to technicalities involving redirects. Leave these categories alone. — Jun. 2, '06 [14:39] < freak| talk>
    • ah. Well, if you don't want any "idiosyncratic usage", we'd better rename all the categories that use the word "automobile" - since it's not even used by all Americans (a lot understand and use the word "car" instead). An outsider might walk away thinking that the U.S. exports no cars at all, since there are no categories for U.S. car manufacturers. Grutness... wha? 05:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Calling British English "idiosyncratic" is offensive. Honbicot 20:06, 3 June 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:Battles of the Hussites

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty; redundant with Category:Battles of the Hussite Wars (and its parent Category:Battles of Bohemia). Kirill Lokshin 22:41, 29 May 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:1848 Revolutions to Category:Revolutions of 1848

Category:People of the 1848 Revolutions to Category:People of the Revolutions of 1848

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

To follow naming adopted by articles within these articles (as it simplifies indexing; "X of Year" rather than "Year X" a Wikipedia guideline?) David Kernow 21:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Rename both as nom. David Kernow 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as proposed in line with normal usage for these events. Athenaeum 22:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename both. Sure, seems better. Dahn 22:36, 29 May 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 the Russian Revolution to Category:People of the Russian Revolutions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 Withdrawn, relisted alternative at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 31#Category:October Revolution to Category:Russian Revolution.

In case there are or will be articles on people involved in either or both the 1905 and 1917 revolutions. Alternatively, if all 1917 (as indicated by text on category page) then rename to "People of the Russian Revolution of 1917" and maybe create "People of the Russian Revolution of 1905"...?   David Kernow 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Rename as nom. If renamed, I'll amend text on category page. David Kernow 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC), amended 11:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Alternative proposal I think the cat is specifically meant to cover people involved in the 1917 Revolution(s) (February, October), and not to any other. I suggest it is renamed to Category:People of the Russian Revolution of 1917 (without subcats for February and October, since they would be largely repetitive, and Bolshevik activists involved are already included in Category:Old Bolsheviks, which ought to become a subcat of the 1917 cat). In the future, an independent Category:People of the Russian Revolution of 1905 could be created as a category of its own. Dahn 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The parent cat is Category:Russian Revolution and this is described as including "the 1905 uprising, both 1917 revolutions, and the civil wars in the immediate aftermath". Many of the personalities involved were involved in all or several of these events and there is an argument to be made that all were part of the same historical process. If the parent cat is singular, then the child cats should logically be singular too. Cats for 1905 and 1917 as Dahn proposes then implies a need for a Civil War cat too; many of the personalities will then be in three interlinked cats; it starts to look crufty. Valiantis 14:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Okay, if result is oppose or no consensus, I'll edit the text on the category's page to include the above. Thanks, David Kernow 14:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment Taking this in view, shouldn't the utterly suprfluous Category:October Revolution be deleted as well? Dahn 20:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. I've proposed the merge here. Per Valiantis and yourself, I'm now:
  • Withdrawing nomination as nom. Thanks for your input, David Kernow 11:20, 31 May 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:Second albums

Category:Albums by number

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 - while there's no clear supermajority, people don't seem to be opposed to deletion. Conscious 12:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

UPDATE. I've redone the nominations to delete. It seems like no one (even me) is supporting the concept of the categories in the discussions below. So it looks to me like most people support deletion. Chime in if you don't. (Admin: Some "Oppose" votes were to my initial renaming nom.)-- Mike Selinker 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Two related nominations. The first nomination is a proposed switch back to a previous category name. In the successful deletion nomination here, all numbered album categories (e.g., "Third albums") were deleted except category:Debut albums and category:Final albums. I suggest that more users will recreate these categories if the "Second album" category continues to be named that. So I suggest that we should rename this one to a common English term that doesn't contain a number, since there is no "Junior albums" concept that would logically follow it the way Third logically follows Second. I also suggest the "Albums by number" category be changed, so it also suggests the numbers after Second should exist. We think of Debut, Sophomore, and Final albums as meaningful not because of a number, but because of a milestone in the band's career.-- Mike Selinker 18:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • The term "sophomore" is quite specific to America - I don't recall ever hearing anyone in the UK refer to an album (or novel, film, or season of a sports career) as "sophomore", and it's pretty rare even for academic years. So the proposed category might be meaningless depending where you learnt your English. A dictionary won't necessarily help - Merriam-Webster Online gives "second in a series" as a meaning, but Cambridge Online doesn't. Onebyone 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Don't you mean it the other way around? JW 00:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, we have an entry for people who don't know it: Sophomore album. So in my opinion, any confusion is far outweighed by the removal of the number concept from the category title.-- Mike Selinker 00:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
In that case oppose - the only proposed reason for the rename is to "prevent" a re-creation of Third Albums. I don't find this convincing: it's pure speculation whether it will even work, and in any case we shouldn't make things deliberately unclear in order to save admin time. If a category is worth having, it should be worth giving it the clearest available name. Onebyone 09:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure what the rationale might be for grouping various artists' second albums together... Also, though I recognise the thinking behind "by milestone", might this description be overly POV, especially for less-than-very-famous artists...?  Apologies if I'm missing the obvious, David Kernow 01:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I think the logic is that sophomore albums have a propensity to be down albums for the artists. So it's documenting that trend, if it's even real. I could get behind deleting this, if renaming doesn't sit with everyone. I just don't like it as is.-- Mike Selinker 03:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I'd have thought that, the "difficult third album" is as much of a music-world phenomenon/concept/myth as the "rubbish second album". If that's not worth charting, maybe nothing is, including for that matter "debut album". Onebyone
  • Oppose. "Sophomore" is inherently POV and has nothing to do with whether it's a second, thirs, or whatever album. Surely "sophomore" simply means "not particularly clever"(as in "sophomore humour", "sophomore ideas" or "a sophomore attempt" at something). It's certainly not used in any other sense that I know of. Does it mean something different in the US? Grutness... wha? 06:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • In the US, it's your second year of schooling. Hence, second album.-- Mike Selinker 13:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename both per nom. This would be a good way to remove the temptation for the recreation of the deleted third albums, fourth albums, etc. categories. Sophomore does not mean the same thing as sophomoric. - EurekaLott 07:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comments above (and, if I recall correctly, in the previous related CfD debate) suggest that "sophomore" in this context is prone to being misunderstood or not understood at all, especially with non-U.S. folk. (I'm not convinced that "sophomore" is used much if at all outside (U.S.) education.) Also, I'm not sure there aren't as many artists whose second album was generally judged as "better" than their first – many may even have been their "breakthrough" album. For now, therefore:
  • Delete Category:Second albums as insufficiently significant; delete Category:Albums by number as unnecessary. Regards, David Kernow 10:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Category:Second albums per David K; delete the parent (upmerging first and last to category:albums) too, unless someone can suggest a logical name. × Meegs 12:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I'm with Meegs and David if everybody else is. Is there anyone who wants to save the category based on its inherent worth (as opposed to its name)?-- Mike Selinker 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Avoid "Sophomore album" as fairly meaningless to those outside the U.S. - everything else, I'm neutral on. SeventyThree( Talk) 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose "Sophomore album" as the word sophomore is almost unknown in British English. Otherwise, I'm not bothered what happens. Bhoeble 13:42, 31 May 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:Users in Defense of Userboxes and Individuality on Wikipedia (UDUIW)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 to delete. Conscious 08:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved from MfD: Category used for vote-stacking. As you can see here, on May 25, 14 users were delivered identically canvassing messages in succession. All users were included in this category at the time, either via their userpage or via a subpage. Category has no encyclopedic merit, only polemical, in the sense of fighting against site policy. Delete. Computerjoe 's talk 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I don't know what I was thinking taking this to MfD when CfD exists. Thanks for fixing my error, Computerjoe. Delete, as original nom. - GTBacchus( talk) 16:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a creative writing club. Wikipedia articles should not have any individuality. Athenaeum 17:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The use was by a non-member of the category, whose (post-block) stated intent was to communicate that a discussion was underway with a broad cross section of those that care about the discussion, not solely those with a particular point of view. [1] There is no evidence that the purpose of the category is for vote-stacking, not that the members of the category have so used it. If a category can be deleted because it is abused by a non-member, all user categories are vulnerable to deletion - though proving it would violate WP:POINT. Finally, Athenaeum's argument is irrelevant - this category is not used in any articles. GRBerry
    The fact that ideology related categories are so easily abusable, by a category member or not, is precisely why they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. User categorization is there to help us write an encyclopedia, not to network politically. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's room for individuality in userspace, but this category does go too far. -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Exists only to votestack. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's a category to show a Wikipedian organization, and you could use any other user category, including the logo, to votestack. And I was going to make my way to the opposition, but I got blocked before I could get even close. And I am a member of the organization by the way. Dtm142 23:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Divisive category. -- cesarb 01:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, bring to TfD, as this is a userbox-associated cat, IIRC. -- Rory096 05:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Actually send back to MfD, see User:Cjmarsicano/UDUIW. -- Rory096 05:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • If it walks like a template... does it go to TfD? Do the category and template have to be considered as a unit for deletion? - GTBacchus( talk) 07:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no valid reason for deletion. -- 70.218.3.206 05:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Abuse shouldn't be a reason for deletion. I agree with GRBerry's comments, although I'm neutral on the deletion. SeventyThree( Talk) 14:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per 73. Also, we would have to delete half of MetaWiki if espousing a Wikiphilosophy was a criteria for deletion.-- M @ r ē ino 15:21, 30 May 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:Kanto Gym Leaders to Category:Gym Leaders

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This category has the bulk of this category's children; there were other subcats for other regions, but they have been depopulated by list merges (and are listed for deletion below). There's really no need to split Category:Gym Leaders up by region any more. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 10:01, 29 May 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.

Empty Gym Leader cats

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 00:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Depopulated by list merges, and even if they weren't, the overcat doesn't really need subcats anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 10:01, 29 May 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:Products of Sweden to Category:Goods manufactured in Sweden

Relisted from May 14 for more opinions. Conscious 07:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 whatsoever. Conscious 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This category is a child of Category:Manufactured goods. However its current name is ambiguous - How are these products defined as being of the country, nation, or state of Sweden? Switching to "goods manufactured in" is much more clearer and precise than the wording "products of", and would better follow the established category naming hierarchy of Category:Manufactured goods. Kurieeto 16:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Sorry, by naming hierarchy I meant the "Manufactured goods" part of Category:Manufactured goods. Introducing "Products" as a category name does not follow that line of wording. Kurieeto 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, that makes a lot more sense. Sometimes I can't see the wood for the trees! That would make a renaming without changing the scope Category:Manufactured goods of Sweden. If you want to change the scope of the category, it's going to mean some work to check what should stay in the category and what should go. SeventyThree( Talk) 05:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even before globalization became a buzzword, manufactured goods were not strictly the products of one country or another. Today, the "American" Boeing 787 incorporates significant work done in Japan; Sony LCD screens are rebranded products of Samsung, a South Korean company, and actually made in Tijuana; many Honda Accords are made in Ohio, with engines soon to be manufactured in Ontario; and Volvo has truck factories in Wroclaw and Bangalore and is now owned by a company based in Dearborn, Michigan. At best such categories as this lump together brand names and corporate parents which originated in a country, but the long-term utility of such categories I believe to be nil. - choster 16:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without rename -- all the "Goods manufactured in ..." categories were actually created recently by nominator, and thus are not a "standard". Delete the Swedish, and then delete the corresponding United States, Canada, and Germany. Goodness gracious, the Fiesta is listed as Germany, Spain, United States, when simply vehicles is enough! -- William Allen Simpson 02:39, 6 June 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:Geelong Mayors to Category:Mayors of Geelong

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

As per naming conventions. -- Longhair 05:46, 29 May 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:Tricarboxylic acids

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 00:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Very small, with a weak parent article, and only one notable example. Category:Dicarboxylic acids is worthy, but Category:Tetracarboxylic acids obviously isn't; where do we draw the line? mastodon 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  • I have no idea, but since no one else has commented, and that's a poor return on the effort of making the nomination, I will lend tentative support on the basis that you probably know what you are talking about. If anyone who claims a knowledge of chemistry opposes, then please leave this comment out of consideration at closure. Honbicot 20:10, 3 June 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:Rebbes of Breslov

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Unlike other Hasidic sects, Breslov has only had and will only ever have one Rebbe. This category is forever limited to one entry. - CrazyRussian talk/ contribs/ email 02:25, 29 May 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_May_29&oldid=1136463912"