This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SaxTeacher (talk | contribs) at 15:17, 21 February 2007 (→Category:Cessna: typo fix again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:17, 21 February 2007 by SaxTeacher (talk | contribs) (→Category:Cessna: typo fix again)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| < February 19 | February 21 > |
|---|
February 20
Category:Quranic religion texts
Delete, What is a Quranic religion text that is not an Islamic text? I searched for "Quranic religion" and google only brought up 62 hits; clearly not a term that should be used to categorize articles. Jeff3000 23:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Quranic texts should be a sub-category of Category:Islamic texts. This is already the case with Category:Quran. So, delete this category (which acts as an intermediary between "Islamic texts" and Category:Abrahamic texts) and recategorize its only article (Circle Seven Koran) accordingly. However, do not delete Category:Islamic texts. -- Black Falcon 04:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Black Falcon. Craig.Scott 12:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Chén (陳) (surname)
I thought it was consensus that we do not create categories for surnames. Niohe 23:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Cessna
- Propose renaming Category:Cessna to Category:Cessna aircraft
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Cessna" is the name of a company. The category is not about the company itself but the various different aircraft models manufactured by Cessna. Renaming it will bring it into line with other aircraft model categories (see list at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Aircraft/Categories#Airplane_Specific_by_manufacturer ) such as Category:Piper aircraft, Category:Grumman aircraft, etc. —SaxTeacher (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and add sub cat - Has to do with all articles related to cessna. May be able to add a subcategory, Cessna Aircraft. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- But there's nothing in the category other than pages about Cessna aircraft. Look at the list of pages in the category now. There are no other likely topics about Cessna other than their various models of aircraft. —SaxTeacher (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Australia to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Bulgaria to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Canada to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Croatia to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in the Czech Republic to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Germany to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Kazakhstan to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Poland to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Serbia to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Slovakia to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Slovenia to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in South Africa to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Spain to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in the United Kingdom to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in the United States to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Category:Coal-fired power stations in Uzbekistan to Category:Coal-fired power stations by country
- Weak Merge
- History
- Last Summer, User:Ratarsed created Category:Coal power stations in England.
- Last Fall, User:Grinner created the parent Category:Coal-fired power stations in the United Kingdom.
- Last month, I came along and created parallel categories for 4 more countries (Canada,United States,Germany, and Australia).
- This month User:Beagel created 12 more and the new parent Category:Coal-fired power stations by country.
- Current state
- Australia has 26 articles
- Canada has 3 articles
- Germany has 24 articles
- Poland has 5 articles
- United Kingdom has 5 articles
- England has 12 articles
- United States has 30 articles
- Other eleven each have 1 article
- Discussion
- I think that some of these categories are useful to navigation, rolled up there are more than 100 articles in a single category. Separated you have eleven single-article categories that are not useful to navigation. It would be nice if there were some arbitrary rule of thumb for when to split off subcategories it would be nice. I still think that Category:Madison Wisconsin based companies made sense, but I now understand better how it becomes a slippery slope.
- Opinion
- I think this needs to be discussed, I would merge all of the single-article categories into Category:Coal-fired power stations and leave the rest alone, but I can see where that just invites someone else to come along next month and recreate them all. ~ BigrTex 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose all Can anyone tell me why an article that is the only one for its country should not be categorised in the same way as one that is not? LukeHoC 23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Coal power stations in England to Category:Coal-fired power stations in England if kept. Vegaswikian 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Currently various types of power stations roll up by sub categories to various by country categories. So these become parts of a series. While there may only one entry for some of those, using categories to place these in multiple other categories seems reasonable. Vegaswikian 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose all This is good categorization, there is no reason to merge at all. Craig.Scott 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Tourist attractions in Michigan
- Propose renaming Category:Tourist attractions in Michigan to Category:Visitor attractions in Michigan
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename. To match form for other by state categories in Category:Visitor attractions in the United States. Vegaswikian 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. LukeHoC 23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Tourist attractions in Colorado
- Propose renaming Category:Tourist attractions in Colorado to Category:Visitor attractions in Colorado
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename. To match form for other by state categories in Category:Visitor attractions in the United States. Vegaswikian 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Attractions in Florida
- Propose renaming Category:Attractions in Florida to Category:Visitor attractions in Florida
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Parent is Category:Visitor attractions in the United States. Most other states use the proposed form. Vegaswikian 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Craig.Scott 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Christian by occupation
- Merge, Obvious typo of intended name. ChristTrekker 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:German phrases
- Merge - redundant to the preferred naming convention. Otto4711 18:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT#DICT. I'm not sure what the rationale is in having these categories. They strike me as being eminently suited to a dictionary, but thoroughly un-encyclopaedic. On Misplaced Pages we deal with things, subjects, events, animals, vegetables, minerals, etc, etc—we do not deal with words as words. The articles within this category (and the other words and phrases categories) are far better categorised for their other attributes than the fact that they are a word in a certain language.
- Xdamr 18:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we do deal with words as words, hence Category:Words, Category:Words by language, all of the various Fooian words and phrases subcats, the Fooian loanwords subcats, etc. Not that any of that justifies retaining the category structure but considering the extent of it perhaps a single CFM or series of CFM/CFR nominations isn't the best place to address it. Otto4711 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are right of course, this is not the place to consider the entire category structure. However I do think that we would be best off without it. Even if we do currently deal with words as words, I don't think that we should. I'll take a look around the category tree, but at the moment I incline towards nominating it for deletion.
- Comment That may be, but English contains many many loan words/phrases. For example, we say "in medias res" when coming in on the middle of some action. That's the preferred phrase to use in English conversation to describe the concept, even though the phrase itself is not English. It definitely belongs in the English wikipedia, and certainly falls in Category:Latin phrases. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. LukeHoC 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Japanese phrases
- Merge - redundant to the preferred construction. Otto4711 18:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Category:German phrases above. --Xdamr 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. LukeHoC 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Min Nan terms
- Propose renaming Category:Min Nan terms to Category:Min Nan words and phrases
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename per consensus on using this naming construction. Otto4711 18:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Mandarin terms
- Propose renaming Category:Mandarin terms to Category:Mandarin words and phrases
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename per previous CFRs endorsing the naming construction. Otto4711 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Cantonese terms
- Propose renaming Category:Cantonese terms to Category:Cantonese words and phrases
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename per all previous CFRs endorsing this naming construction. Otto4711 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Chinese terms
- Propose renaming Category:Chinese terms to Category:Chinese words and phrases
- Nominator's Rationale: Per numerous previous CFRs endorsing this construction. Otto4711 18:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Russian autodidacts
One entry since Jul 06. Non-notable. Non-encyclopedic. Absurd. Deltopia 18:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. —SaxTeacher (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There are similar categories for other countries. Why has this one been singled out? LukeHoC 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I singled it out because it was the first one I ran across; if the nomination for deletion was successful, I was going to go back and delete all the other autodidact categories. I would have probably been bolder, except this was the first time I nominated a category for deletion -- and thanks to whomever fixed the formatting :) Deltopia 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Autodidacts are people who have taught themselves. Given that many people do this, the categorization is not needed. Also, given that many other categories related to people's education levels are ready for deletion (see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16), it makes little sense to keep this category. (I will nominate the other autodidact categories for deletion today.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The other autodidact categories have been nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 21#Category:Autodidacts. Dr. Submillimeter 10:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete in line with the group nomination. Craig.Scott 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Australian Aboriginal terms
- Propose renaming Category:Australian Aboriginal terms to Category:Australian Aboriginal words and phrases
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename - per all previous CFRs endorsing this construction. Otto4711 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Bengali terms
- Propose renaming Category:Bengali terms to Category:Bengali words and phrases
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename - per many previous CFRs endorsing the "...words and phrases" construction. Otto4711 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Hindi terms
- Propose renaming Category:Hindi terms to Category:Hindi words and phrases
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename - per numerous previous CFRs establishing "...words and phrases" as the preferred construction. Otto4711 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, I inadvertantly created the words and phrases category in the course of this CFR, so this would now be a Merge. Otto4711 17:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Hip hop albums by artist
- Merge into Category:Albums by artist, or Keep. This is a strange one. By convention of WikiProject Albums, Category:Albums by artist is supposed to be all-inclusive. To me this signifies that Albums by artist should not be subcategorized. I noticed this problem when I found that Category:Ugly Duckling albums was NOT in Albums by artist, because it was already in Hip hop albums by artist. Normally we do not add articles to grandparent categories. -- Prove It 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: You should have brought this up at the talk page before bringing it to CFD. That way we could have weighed the merits of splittin up Category:Albums by artist by genre. To me, it seems pretty obvious that huge categories should be split along reasonable lines. Also, Ugly Duckling albums is not in Albums by artist because I created it only about an hour ago today, so I don't think it's a very good example of how big a problem this is.--Urthogie 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Dividing Albums by artist by genre is not an aid to navigation and can potentially lead to POV judgment calls as to the genre of a particular album, leading it to be placed in multiple categories, resulting in clutter. I doubt anyone looking for the albums of a particular artist are going to look for the genre before looking for the artist him- or herself. Otto4711 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's useful for people who don't want to go through all the other genres while looking for albums by a certain (insert genre name here) artist.--Urthogie 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Trying to look at this from the perspective of a casual reader who may not be as intimately familiar with Wiki-navigation...if I were looking for articles on the albums of, say, Snoop Dogg, the first thing I would do would be to type "Snoop Dogg" in the search box. That would take me to his article, in which I find a section titled Snoop_Dog#Discography_and_filmography which includes links to a number of his albums and a link to a complete Snoop Dogg discography and filmography. It would never occur to me to start with a search for Category:Hip hop albums by artist. Otto4711 17:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I note also that Category:Albums by artist has a comprehensive table of contents. Should one stumble into that category in search of a particular artist, one can find the artist by clicking on the first two letter-combination of the artist's last name. Otto4711 17:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- People actually do explore categories like Category:Hip hop, though. A significant portion of users that aren't editing use these categories to find things. Lemme put it this way: we lose nothing by having this category. At the very least we gain something for the many people who like to explore Category:Hip hop, and who aren't fans of most pop music, just hip hop.--Urthogie 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Even granting that, given the consensus of the WikiProject I am loath to attempt to overturn that consensus on the basis of a CFD discussion. Otto4711 17:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Have you noticed that this CFD was started without any discussion whatsoever? Perhaps switching your vote to decide on talk page would allow us to sort out arguments more carefully. I could decategorize the category while we discussed it.--Urthogie 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know what "decategorizing" the category would entail. It is completely appropriate for this discussion on this particular category to continue. If you want to work on changing the consensus about Album by artist, you should work with WikiProject Albums. Otto4711 19:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a bit too late for that, since it's been nominated it's an issue of last minute arguments before deletion. Now, because the nominator refused to use the talk page first, I have an extremely small chance of getting this category back if its deleted. Telling me to work on WikiProject Albums won't make a difference-- 85 percent is required to review deletions, if I remember correctly. Because of the way this nom was organized, the cards are stacked way against a relatively new entry-- it's being treated like a shitty category worthy of speedy deletion, when plenty of reasonable minds (such as yourself) can see merits and flaws to both sides of the arguments. All I ask is that you vote for this article to be further discussed in the meantime. When I said "decategorize" it what I was referring to was I would opt not to add things to it, temporarily removing the article it contained, and article it was part of, until the debate was settled. But that seems rather hopeless, seeing as to how this rushed CFD (started literally less than a matter of minutes after the category was created) will likely succeed in deleting it and merging it up. If you do support me in my idea of letting this be sorted out under less pressure on the appropriate Category Talk page, I would respectfully support its deletion/merging if consensus was reached against it. But it seems extremely unfair for me to have to go against a wide-ranging consensus at the last minute before it will likely be merged, without any attempts to discuss before hand. Deletion discussions are supposed to at least follow some level of discussion if people are being polite.--Urthogie 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is Categories for Discussion (not Deletion). This is the proper place to discuss categories. Being nominated here means that we reach consensus on keep, rename, merge, delete, listify, etc. ~ BigrTex 23:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Have you noticed that this CFD was started without any discussion whatsoever? Perhaps switching your vote to decide on talk page would allow us to sort out arguments more carefully. I could decategorize the category while we discussed it.--Urthogie 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge - Albums by artist is specifically set up to be organized by artist name, NOT by artist genre. Therefore all the subcategories of "Hip Hop albums by artist" should be recategorized under Albums by artist. Trying to subdivide Albums by artist by genre completely defeats the point of having all these artists in the same alphabetical-by-name orderdering. Dugwiki 18:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why not have them in both? I'm willing to put in the effort to put them in both if noone else is.--Urthogie 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. Subdividing this category is a mistake. This will lead to many artists' albums being categorized into multiple categories, and judgment calls (and fights over judgment calls) along the way. Please put it back before more subdividing without concensus occurs.--Mike Selinker 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- We already do have artists sorted by genres, and the album genres only exist to the extent that the genre categories already do. So I don't see how any controversy would be added by keeping album genre categories that doesn't already exist from categorizing artists...--Urthogie 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let us consider Cher. She is not a hip hip artist but if this category is kept it opens the door to other album by genre categories. Cher is currently categorized as an American dance musician, an American disco musician, an American pop singer, a House musician and a Rhythmic contemporary musician. Which means that potentially her albums could be categorized as dance, disco, pop, House or Rhythmic contemporary, which means that people will fight over which ones or others apply and add as many as five categories to each of her albums. Category:Hip_hop_genres contains 61 different sub-genres. I don't claim to know anything about hip hop but I can imagine the mess that could come from people deciding that particular albums are or aren't properly listed in a particular category. Best in my opinion just to skip all the possible mess and not start in with this sort of category. Otto4711 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Except that her albums would all stay in Category:Cher albums, which instead of having Category:Albums by artist as a parent, might have all 5 of those categories as parents. ~ BigrTex 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- The ones that really confuse me are Black metal, Death metal, and Doom metal ... it's not always clear what genre something is supposed to go in. Imagine if we had to figure out whether an album belonged in Black metal albums by artist or Death metal albums by artist. And of course some bands do more than one genre. I'm sorry, I just don't think it's going to work. -- Prove It 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like there were at least a couple more metal types the last time I was catting albums, I don't know the difference either. But you still wouldn't have to decide where the album belonged. The album goes into Category:MetalBand albums. The only question is whether Category:MetalBand albums belongs in Category:Death metal albums by artist or Category:Black metal albums by artist or somehow both, and how about that one Country album they did? Hoping there isn't really a band called MetalBand ~ BigrTex 04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
We already sort things at Category:Hip hop albums. My point is that we can use the criteria already in place-- that is-- the album categories that already exist. No new troubles would be added. What is wrong with this?--Urthogie 04:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Upmerge while I understand why this category was created, I still don't understand how it can be used in crossover cases (like Cher or MetalBand). If MetalBand has a Country album, and a couple of Death metal albums and a couple more Black metal albums, then all of their albums still belong in Category:MetalBand albums, but they are then by proxy all going to end up in Category:Country albums by artist which is a subcat of Category:Country albums? The metal albums don't belong in the Country albums category. ~ BigrTex 04:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a no-win situation. If we don't make Ugly Ducking albums a member of Albums by artist then we're violating the special provisions of Albums by artist. If we do, we're violating the grandfather clause, since Hip hop albums by artist is of course a member of Albums by artist. -- Prove It 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- My point is that maybe it's a bit unfair to discuss this category before discussing the overarching policy. I mean you just CFD'd this right away... I know you'll say I can still check out WP:ALBUM after this, and that's true, but you're forgetting that it will be much harder to restore this category now, even if I do gain a modest consensus at WP:ALBUM.--Urthogie 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Massachusetts amusement parks
- Propose renaming Category:Massachusetts amusement parks to Category:Amusement parks in Massachusetts
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, because it is the odd one out. Casper Mercer 12:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. LukeHoC 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to match all the others. Herostratus 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Canadian colleges
Delete: Redundant information from Category:Universities and colleges in Canada. See also Category:Canadian universities and its CfD ----Kelvinc 11:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: category duplicates Category:Universities and colleges in Canada. All articles in this cat (except for DeVry University) already belong to a daughter of Universities and colleges in Canada. — mholland 14:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GreenJoe 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Old maps of Hong Kong
Not used. minghong 08:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - The category is empty. Dr. Submillimeter 09:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Orphan image
Empty category - {{orphan image}} now places images into Category:Orphan images. —Remember the dot (t) 06:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Albums by Catharsis
- Rename to Category:Catharsis albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It 05:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rename, I got totally the wrong idea at first glance, I though it was going to be Category:Albums by inspiration or something equally woolly! Mallanox 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Canadian universities
Repetative category. There are provincial categories that are much better for this. Delete GreenJoe 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, already covered by Category:Universities and colleges in Canada. -- Prove It 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: category is a near duplicate of Category:Universities and colleges in Canada. All articles in this cat are already well-categorised. — mholland 14:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unnecessary duplicate. --Xdamr 15:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate. Kevlar67 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Urdu words
Delete, Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Category consists of only one actual article on a word - which I have PRODed - and the rest are simply articles whose titles happen to be words in Urdu. Does not seem encyclopedic. -Elmer Clark 05:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT#DICT. --Xdamr 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, this seems to violate WP:NOT and is quite superfluous. - Anas 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak renameChanging to rename, without weakness to Category:Urdu words and phrases per a number of other CFDs which resulted in the "...words and phrases" structure. Otto4711 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC) There appear to be enough articles which are about things with Urdu names to justify the category. A cursory look through a few of the other Fooian words and phrases categories indicates that they are used for things with Fooian names and not just for articles on the words themselves. Otto4711 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Dead people by occupation
- Block, see also Category:Irish Born Catholic Bishops (Deceased), Deceased Playboy Playmates, Deceased Professional Wrestlers. -- Prove It 04:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Deceased Professional Wrestlers
- Delete, We don't categorize dead people by occupation, see also discussions of September 26th and May 1st. -- Prove It 04:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Misplaced Pages guidelines are clear. Don't categorize as dead/living. Doczilla 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 05:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Leave this category alone. There is a staggering number of wrestlers that have died prematurely, many due to steroid and drug use. It's important that people realize this. Who nominated this for deletion, Vince McMahon?
- Delete - Deceased people should not be sorted by occupation. If it is notable that wrestlers die prematurely, then an article should be written on the subject. The category fails to communicate anything about the phenomenon. Dr. Submillimeter 09:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All wrestlers are going to die some day. Per Dr. Submillimeter, this category fails to justify why it should be exempted from a long line of past decisions and WP policy.
- Delete unless restructured As above, we don't normally subcategorize dead people by occupation. However, it probably would be acceptable to subcategorize wrestlers who died as a direct result of their job, such as Owen Hart. If you want to have that kind of category, I might suggest renaming this one to something like "Wrestlers who died as a result of wrestling". I'd probably support that category, but not this one. Dugwiki 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'll just create a Misplaced Pages entry titled, "List of Deceased Professional Wrestlers" instead of a category. Perhaps then the category police will butt out?
- That would be fine. Till then, delete.--Mike Selinker 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 12:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Artificial mythology
- Merge, they mean the same thing. Goldenrowley 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Metropolitan Area Express (Portland, Oregon)
- Propose renaming Category:Metropolitan Area Express (Portland, Oregon) to Category:MAX Light Rail
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "MAX Light Rail" is the common name. The main article has already been renamed to that. Jason McHuff 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:MAX
Delete, The title is vague and the category is essentially a duplicate of Category:Metropolitan Area Express (Portland, Oregon). Jason McHuff 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Interlingua speakers
- Propose renaming Category:Interlingua speakers to Category:Interlingua users
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename; for many who are categorized here as Interlingua speakers it can only be established whether they have written in the language rather than whether they actually were or are able to speak in it. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. LukeHoC 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Virgin Media Inc
- Propose renaming Category:Virgin Media Inc to Category:Virgin Media
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Designations such as "Inc" are not normally included in category names. This is company is going to become one of the best known media companies in the UK (it is the UK's main cable company, which was renamed a few days ago) and people will rarely append "Inc" when they talk about it. The article should also be moved from Virgin Media Inc to Virgin Media. Olborne 00:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. LukeHoC 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)